Department of Education v. Brown

Summary

Respondents lack Article III standing to assert a procedural challenge to the student-loan debt-forgiveness plan adopted by the Secretary of Education pursuant to Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003 (HEROES Act).

Text

PRELIMINARY PRINT 
Volume 600 U. S. Part 1 
Pages 551–569 
OFFICIAL REPORTS 
OF 
THE SUPREME COURT 
June 30, 2023 
REBECCA A. WOMELDORF 
reporter of decisions 
Page Proof Pending Publication
NOTICE: This preliminary print is subject to formal revision before 
the bound volume is published. Users are requested to notify the Reporter 
of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D.C. 20543, 
[email protected], of any typographical or other formal errors.

OCTOBER TERM, 2022 551 
Syllabus 
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION et al. v. BROWN 
et al. 
certiorari before judgment to the united states 
court of appeals for the fth circuit 
No. 22–535. Argued February 28, 2023—Decided June 30, 2023 
To alleviate hardship expected to be caused by the impending resumption 
of federal student-loan repayments that had been suspended during the 
multi-year coronavirus pandemic, Secretary of Education Miguel Car-
dona announced a substantial student-loan debt-forgiveness plan (Plan). 
The Plan discharges $10,000 to $20,000 of an eligible borrower's debt, 
depending on criteria such as the borrower's income and the type of 
loan held. The Secretary invoked the Higher Education Relief Oppor-
tunities for Students Act of 2003 (HEROES Act), which authorizes the 
Secretary “to waive or modify any provision” applicable to federal “stu-
dent fnancial assistance” programs “as may be necessary to ensure that 
. . . recipients of student fnancial assistance” are no worse off “fnan-
cially in relation to that fnancial assistance because” of a national emer-
gency or disaster. 20 U. S. C. §§ 1098bb(a)(1), (a)(2)(A), 1098ee(2)(C)– 
(D). The HEROES Act also exempts rules promulgated pursuant to 
it from the otherwise-applicable negotiated-rulemaking and notice-and-
comment processes. 
Before the Plan took effect, various plaintiffs—including respondents 
here—sued to enjoin it. Respondents Myra Brown and Alexander 
Taylor are two borrowers who do not qualify for the maximum relief 
available under the Plan. Their one-count complaint alleges that the 
Secretary was required to follow notice-and-comment and negotiated-
rulemaking procedures in promulgating the Plan, which all agree he did 
not do. Brown and Taylor argue that the HEROES Act's procedural 
exemptions apply only when the rule promulgated is substantively au-
thorized by the Act, and because the HEROES Act does not authorize 
the Plan (they argue), the Secretary was required to follow negotiated 
rulemaking and notice and comment. The District Court rejected their 
argument regarding the scope of the HEROES Act's procedural exemp-
tions, but nevertheless vacated the Plan as substantively unauthorized. 
This Court granted certiorari before judgment to consider this case 
alongside Biden v. Nebraska, No. 22–506, which presents a similar chal-
lenge to the Plan. 
Held: Because respondents fail to establish that any injury they suffer 
from not having their loans forgiven is fairly traceable to the Plan, they 
Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication
552 DEP ARTMENT OF EDUCATION v. BROWN 
Syllabus 
lack Article III standing, so the Court has no jurisdiction to address 
their procedural claim. Pp. 560–569. 
(a) “This case begins and ends with standing.” Carney v. Adams, 
592 U. S. –––, –––. The Court's authority under the Constitution is 
limited to resolving “Cases” or “Controversies.” Art. III, § 2. The 
Court's jurisprudence has “established that the irreducible constitu-
tional minimum of standing contains three elements” that a plaintiff 
must plead and—ultimately—prove. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife , 
504 U. S. 555, 560. Those elements are: (1) a “concrete and particular-
ized” injury that is (2) “fairly traceable” to the challenged action of the 
defendant and (3) “likely” to be “redressed by a favorable decision.” 
Id., at 560–561 (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted). But 
where, as here, the plaintiff alleges that she has been deprived of a 
procedural right to protect her concrete interest, she need not show that 
observing the contested procedure would necessarily lead to a different 
substantive result. Id., at 572, n. 7. Pp. 560–562. 
(b) As articulated in this Court, respondents' claim and theory of 
standing are twofold: First, because the HEROES Act does not substan-
tively authorize the Plan, the Secretary was obligated to follow typical 
negotiated-rulemaking and notice-and-comment requirements. Second, 
if the Secretary had observed those procedures, respondents might have 
used those opportunities to convince him not only that proceeding under 
the HEROES Act is unlawful, but also that he should instead adopt a 
different loan-forgiveness program under the Higher Education Act of 
1965 (HEA), and to make that program more generous to respondents 
than the Plan. Respondents assert there is at least a chance that this 
series of events will come to pass now if this Court vacates the Plan. 
Pp. 562–563. 
(c) Respondents' standing claim most clearly fails on traceability: 
They cannot show that their purported injury of not receiving loan relief 
under the HEA is fairly traceable to the Department's (allegedly unlaw-
ful) decision to grant loan relief under the HEROES Act. Pp. 563–569. 
(1) Signifcantly, respondents are not claiming that they are injured 
by not being suffciently included among the Plan's benefciaries: They 
think the Plan is substantively unlawful and instead seek debt forgive-
ness under the HEA. But a decision regarding the lawfulness of the 
Plan does not directly affect respondents' ability to obtain loan relief 
under the HEA; the Department's authority to grant loan relief under 
the HEA (upon which the Court does not pass) is not affected by 
whether the Plan is lawful or unlawful. Any connection between loan 
forgiveness under the two statutes is speculative. 
While it is true that the Court's procedural-standing case law toler-
ates uncertainty over whether observing certain procedures would have

Page Proof Pending Publication
Cite as: 600 U. S. 551 (2023) 553 
Syllabus 
led to (caused) a different substantive outcome, see Lujan, 504 U. S., at 
572, n. 7, the causal uncertainty here is not so limited. Instead, the 
uncertainty concerns whether the substantive decisions the Department 
has made regarding the Plan under the HEROES Act have a causal 
relationship with other substantive decisions respondents want the De-
partment to make under the HEA. There is no precedent for tolerating 
this sort of causal uncertainty. Respondents cannot show that the de-
nial of HEA loan relief—their ostensible injury—“fairly can be traced 
to” the Department's decision to grant loan relief in the Plan. Simon 
v. Eastern Ky. Welfare Rights Organization, 426 U. S. 26, 42–43. 
There is little reason to think that the Department's discretionary deci-
sion to pursue one mechanism of loan relief under the HEROES Act has 
anything to do with its discretionary decision to pursue (or not pursue) 
action under the HEA. “The line of causation between” the Depart-
ment's promulgation of the Plan and respondents' lack of benefts under 
the HEA “is attenuated at best,” Allen v. Wright, 468 U. S. 737, 757, 
and all too dependent on “ `conjecture,' ” Summers v. Earth Island In-
stitute, 555 U. S. 488, 496. Pp. 564–567. 
(2) Respondents' attempts to tie the Plan to potential HEA relief 
are unavailing. Although the Department has occasionally referred to 
“one-time” student-loan relief in publicizing the Plan, the Plan itself con-
tains no such reference. And any incidental effect of the Plan on the 
likelihood that the Department will undertake a separate loan-
forgiveness program under a different statute is too weak and specula-
tive to show that the absence of HEA-based loan forgiveness is fairly 
traceable to the Plan. See, e. g., Simon, 426 U. S., at 42–43. To the 
extent the Department has determined that the Plan crowds out other 
efforts to forgive student loans, that determination is a discretionary 
one that respondents may petition the Department to reconsider. Fi-
nally, respondents cannot demonstrate causation on the theory that the 
Department's failure to observe the requisite procedural rules cost them 
a chance to obtain debt forgiveness; they do not want debt forgiveness 
under the HEROES Act, and nothing the Department has done de-
prives them of a chance to seek debt forgiveness under the HEA. Re-
spondents cannot meaningfully connect the absence of loan relief under 
the HEA to the adoption of the Plan, so they have failed to show that 
their injury is fairly traceable to the Plan. Pp. 567–568. 
Vacated and remanded. 
Alito, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. 
Solicitor General Prelogar argued the cause for petition-
ers. With her on the briefs were Principal Deputy Assist-

Page Proof Pending Publication
554 DEP ARTMENT OF EDUCATION v. BROWN 
Counsel 
ant Attorney General Boynton, Deputy Solicitor General 
Fletcher, Vivek Suri, Yaira Dubin, Michael S. Raab, 
Thomas Pulham, and Brian Siegel. 
J. Michael Connolly argued the cause for respondents. 
With him on the brief were Cameron T. Norris, Gilbert C. 
Dickey, James F. Hasson, and Steven C. Begakis.* 
*Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were fled for the Americans for 
Prosperity Foundation et al. by J. Marc Wheat, Michael Pepson, and Cyn-
thia Fleming Crawford; for Borrower Advocacy and Legal Aid Organiza-
tions by Joshua Rovenger and Persis Yu; for the Empire Center for Public 
Policy, Inc., et al. by Misha Tseytlin and Timothy L. McHugh; for the 
Foundation for Government Accountability by Stewart L. Whitson; for the 
Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute et al. by Theodore H. Frank and Curt A. 
Levey; for Legal Scholars by Jeffrey B. Dubner and Sean A. Lev; for Local 
Governments by Jonathan B. Miller, Joshua A. Rosenthal, Atleen Kaur, 
Mark Griffn, Arturo G. Michel, James D. Smiertka, Peter M. Bollinger, 
Leslie J. Girard, John P . Markovs, Diana P . Cortes, Sheena Hamilton, 
Lyndsey M. Olson, and Ronald A. Hope; for the National Education Asso-
ciation by Alice O'Brien and Jeffrey W. Burritt; for Samuel L. Bray et al. 
by Melissa Arbus Sherry; and for Jed Handelsman Shugerman by Brian 
H. Pandya. Briefs of amici curiae urging vacatur were fled for Arch-
City Defenders et al. by Seth E. Mermin; for the Cato Institute et al. by 
Anastasia P . Boden and Ilya Shaprio; for Six Veterans' Organizations by 
Boris Bershteyn; and for Student Loan Experts by Christopher J. Wright 
and Stephen W. Miller. 
Briefs of amici curiae urging affrmance were fled for the State of 
Utah et al. by Sean D. Reyes, Attorney General of Utah, Melissa Holyoak, 
Solicitor General, and Dave Yost, Attorney General of Ohio, Benjamin M. 
Flowers, Solicitor General, Sylvia May Mailman, Deputy Solicitor Gen-
eral, and by the Attorneys General for their respective States as follows: 
Steve Marshall of Alabama, Treg R. Taylor of Alaska, Ashley Moody of 
Florida, Christopher M. Carr of Georgia, Raúl Labrador of Idaho, Theo-
dore E. Rokita of Indiana, Jeff Landry of Louisiana, Lynn Fitch of Missis-
sippi, Austin Knudsen of Montana, John M. Formella of New Hampshire, 
Gentner Drummond of Oklahoma, Jonathan Skrmetti of Tennessee, Ken 
Paxton of Texas, Patrick Morrisey of West Virginia, and Bridget Hill of 
Wyoming; for the American Center for Law and Justice by Jay Alan Sek-
ulow, Stuart J. Roth, Colby M. May, Jordan A. Sekulow , and Laura B. 
Hernandez; for the Buckeye Institute by David C. Tryon and Robert Alt; 
for Sen. Marsha Blackburn et al. by Steven A. Engel and Michael H. Mc-
Ginley; for Elisabeth DeVos et al. by Alexander Akerman; for Michael

Page Proof Pending Publication
Cite as: 600 U. S. 551 (2023) 555 
Opinion of the Court 
Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the Court. 
In August 2022, the Secretary of Education announced a 
large-scale student-loan forgiveness program. He pledged 
to discharge hundreds of billions of dollars in student-loan 
debt owed by millions of borrowers. According to the Sec-
retary, the discharge was necessary to alleviate hardship 
caused by the impending resumption of loan repayments, 
which had been suspended during the multi-year coronavirus 
pandemic, and he therefore invoked authority that he 
claimed he enjoyed under the Higher Education Relief Op-
W. McConnell et al. by William R. Levi; for Howard McKeon et al. by 
Caleb Kruckenberg; and for 128 U. S. Representatives et al. by Jennifer 
L. Mascott and R. Trent McCotter . 
Briefs of amici curiae were fled for the Commonwealth of Massachu-
setts et al. by Elizabeth N. Dewar, Acting Attorney General of Massachu-
setts, and Yael Shavit, Assistant Attorney General, and by the Attorneys 
General for their respective jurisdictions as follows: Rob Bonta of Califor-
nia, Philip J. Weiser of Colorado, William Tong of Connecticut, Kathleen 
Jennings of Delaware, Brian L. Schwalb of the District of Columbia, Anne 
E. Lopez of Hawaii, Kwame Raoul of Illinois, Anthony G. Brown of Mary-
land, Dana Nessel of Michigan, Keith Ellison of Minnesota, Aaron D. Ford 
of Nevada, Matthew J. Platkin of New Jersey, Raúl Torrez of New Mexico, 
Letitia James of New York, Joshua H. Stein of North Carolina, Ellen F. 
Rosenblum of Oregon, Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania, Peter F. Neronha 
of Rhode Island, Charity R. Clark of Vermont, Robert W. Ferguson of 
Washington, and Joshua L. Kaul of Wisconsin; for the America First Pol-
icy Institute by Craig W. Trainor and Rachel Jag; for the American Feder-
ation of Teachers et al. by Yelena Konanova, Faith E. Gay, and Max H. 
Siegel; for the Atlantic Legal Foundation by Lawrence S. Ebner; for the 
Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America by Robert E. 
Dunn, Jennifer B. Dickey, and Amy Miller; for the Landmark Legal 
Foundation by Michael J. O'Neill, Matthew C. Forys, and Richard 
P . Hutchison; for the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law 
et al. by Damon Hewitt, Jon Greenbaum, David Hinojosa, and Genevieve 
Bonadies Torres; for the New Civil Liberties Alliance by Markham S. 
Chenoweth and Russell G. Ryan; for the Protect Democracy Project by 
Justin Florence and Genevieve Nadeau; for George Miller by Elizabeth 
B. Wydra and Brianne J. Gorod; and for Lawrence A. Stein by Mr. Stein, 
pro se.

556 DEP ARTMENT OF EDUCATION v. BROWN 
Opinion of the Court 
portunities for Students Act of 2003 (HEROES Act). 117 
Stat. 904, codifed at 20 U. S. C. § 1070 et seq. The following 
month, the Secretary directed that specifc actions be taken 
to implement the loan-forgiveness plan (Plan). The amount 
of relief available to a borrower under the Plan depends on 
various criteria, including the borrower's income and the 
type of loan the borrower holds. 
Before the Plan took effect, however, various plaintiffs— 
including respondents here—sued to enjoin it. Respondents 
are two individual borrowers who, for different reasons, do 
not qualify for the maximum relief available under the Plan. 
They argue that the Department of Education promulgated 
the Plan without following mandatory procedures known as 
(1) negotiated rulemaking and (2) notice and comment. The 
District Court held in favor of respondents, and we granted 
certiorari before judgment to consider this case alongside 
Biden v. Nebraska, No. 22–506, which presents a similar 
challenge to the Plan. 
Ultimately, however, we do not resolve respondents' pro-
cedural claim because we conclude that they lack standing to 
bring it. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the United 
States District Court for the Northern District of Texas and 
remand with instructions to dismiss. We simultaneously 
deny as moot the Department's application for a stay pend-
ing appeal. 
I 
A 
The Court's opinion in Biden v. Nebraska, 600 U. S. 477 
(2023), recounts the relevant background of the HEROES 
Act, so only a brief summary is provided here. The Act au-
thorizes the Secretary of Education “to waive or modify any 
provision” applicable to federal “student fnancial assistance” 
programs “as may be necessary to ensure that . . . recipients 
of student fnancial assistance” who live or work in a declared 
disaster area, or suffer direct economic hardship as a result 
Page Proof Pending Publication

Cite as: 600 U. S. 551 (2023) 557 
Opinion of the Court 
of a national emergency, “are not placed in a worse position 
fnancially in relation to that fnancial assistance because” 
of the disaster or emergency. 20 U. S. C. §§ 1098bb(a)(1), 
(a)(2)(A), 1098ee(2)(C)–(D). 
In addition to this substantive grant of authority, the 
HEROES Act dispenses with certain procedural rules for 
actions taken pursuant to it. 
First, the HEROES Act permits the Secretary to imple-
ment any “waivers and modifcations authorized or required” 
by the Act without engaging in the “negotiated rulemaking” 
that is typically required before proposing regulations relat-
ing to student fnancial assistance. § 1098bb(d). Negoti-
ated rulemaking is a lengthy deliberative process involving 
many stakeholders. Pursuant to this process, the Secretary 
must frst obtain “advice of and recommendations” from a 
long list of sources, including “individuals and representa-
tives” of groups “such as students, legal assistance organiza-
tions that represent students, institutions of higher educa-
tion, State student grant agencies, guaranty agencies, 
lenders, secondary markets, loan servicers, guaranty agency 
servicers, and collection agencies.” § 1098a(a)(1). Then, 
informed by this consultation, the Secretary must submit 
draft regulations for consideration in a negotiation process 
involving participants who are “chosen by the Secretary 
from individuals nominated by” such groups. § 1098a(b)(1). 
Only after taking these steps may the Secretary “publis[h] 
proposed regulations in the Federal Register,” ibid., accom-
panied by a summary of the information the Secretary re-
ceived throughout the process, § 1098a(a)(2). The HEROES 
Act, however, permits the Secretary to bypass this onerous 
process. § 1098bb(d). 
The HEROES Act also authorizes the Secretary to bypass 
notice-and-comment procedures that the Administrative Pro-
cedure Act (APA) would otherwise demand. The APA typi-
cally requires agencies to give the public “[g]eneral notice 
of [a] proposed rule making” by publication in the Federal 
Page Proof Pending Publication

558 DEP ARTMENT OF EDUCATION v. BROWN 
Opinion of the Court 
Register, and then to provide “interested persons an oppor-
tunity to participate in the rule making through submission 
of written data, views, or arguments” regarding the pro-
posed rule. 5 U. S. C. §§ 553(b), (c). The agency may pro-
mulgate a fnal rule only after providing notice and opportu-
nity for comment. § 553(c). But the HEROES Act instead 
permits the Secretary to implement the waivers and modif-
cations he “deems necessary to achieve the purposes of” the 
Act merely by “publish[ing]” “notice in the Federal Regis-
ter.” 20 U. S. C. § 1098bb(b)(1). 
B 
On September 27, 2022, Secretary of Education Miguel 
Cardona, invoking authority under the HEROES Act, di-
rected the issuance of waivers and modifcations that would 
bring about the forgiveness of a substantial amount of 
student-loan debt. In particular, he purported to effect the 
discharge of (1) $10,000 of eligible, federally held student-
loan debt for any individual borrower with 2020 or 2021 in-
come under $125,000 (or household income under $250,000), 
and (2) an additional $10,000 (making a total of $20,000) for 
any such borrower who had ever received a Pell Grant. Pell 
Grants are Government-funded grants to help defray the 
cost of postsecondary education; eligibility for these grants 
turns principally on the income of a student's family when 
the student applies to and is enrolled in the relevant educa-
tional program (almost always undergraduate study). See 
§§ 1070a(b)(2), 1087mm(a), 1091; see also 34 CFR § 690.6(c) 
(2022) (limited eligibility for students in a qualifying “post-
baccalaureate program”). Secretary Cardona directed that 
these actions be taken via a publication in the Federal Regis-
ter, see App. 262; all agree that he did not observe the gen-
erally applicable negotiated-rulemaking or notice-and -
comment processes in devising and announcing the Plan. 
Notwithstanding the Plan's scope and expense, not all 
student-loan borrowers were pleased with it. Myra Brown 
Page Proof Pending Publication

Cite as: 600 U. S. 551 (2023) 559 
Opinion of the Court 
and Alexander Taylor, plaintiffs in this case, are two such 
dissatisfed borrowers, albeit for different reasons. Brown's 
loans are “commercially held,” id., at 171, Complaint ¶10, 
meaning that her creditor is an entity other than the Federal 
Government. The Plan, however, applies only to borrowers 
whose loans fall into one or more categories of loans “held 
by the Department.” 87 Fed. Reg. 61513 (2022). Conse-
quently, Brown is not entitled to any loan forgiveness under 
the Plan. 
Taylor, on the other hand, is eligible for loan forgiveness— 
but only $10,000, rather than the maximum $20,000. That is 
because, despite now having an annual income of less than 
$25,000, he never received a Pell Grant. See App. 183, Com-
plaint ¶61. Thus, individuals with annual income up to fve 
times greater than his are eligible for twice as much loan 
forgiveness as he is if they ever received a Pell Grant. 
Accordingly, both Brown and Taylor object to certain ele-
ments of the Plan—Brown to its limitation to federally held 
loans, and Taylor to the additional relief it doles out based 
on prior Pell Grants, with no regard for current income. Be-
cause the Department did not engage in negotiated rule-
making or notice and comment, however, Brown and Taylor 
had no formal opportunity to voice their views on the Plan 
prior to its adoption. 
Alleging that the law entitles them to such an opportunity, 
Brown and Taylor brought this action in the U. S. District 
Court for the Northern District of Texas. Their one-count 
complaint claims that the Plan is unlawful because the De-
partment promulgated it without observing the require-
ments of negotiated rulemaking and notice and comment. 
As a result, they claim, we should “[v]acate and set aside 
the” Plan under 5 U. S. C. § 706(2)(D). App. 186. 
Brown and Taylor recognize that the HEROES Act sup-
plies exemptions from these procedural requirements. 
They argue, however, that an action of the Secretary falls 
within these exemptions only if it is substantively authorized 
Page Proof Pending Publication

560 DEP ARTMENT OF EDUCATION v. BROWN 
Opinion of the Court 
by the Act; the Secretary, in their view, cannot merely invoke 
the “HEROES Act” to bypass negotiated rulemaking and 
notice and comment. According to Brown and Taylor, the 
Act does not substantively authorize the Plan, and so the 
Secretary was required to follow these procedures. 
The District Court agreed with Brown and Taylor—in 
part. It rebuffed their central argument that the HEROES 
Act exempts from procedural requirements only those ac-
tions that the Act substantively authorizes. But the Dis-
trict Court nonetheless held that the Plan exceeds the Se-
cretary's authority under the HEROES Act and therefore 
entered judgment vacating it. 640 F. Supp. 3d 644, 668 
(2022). 
After the Fifth Circuit denied the Department's motion 
for a stay pending appeal, the Department applied to this 
Court for such a stay. The Department advised in the alter-
native that we could treat its application as a petition for 
certiorari before judgment. We did just that, granting the 
Department's petition for certiorari before judgment and 
deferring consideration of its application for a stay. 598 
U. S. ––– (2022). We now review the judgment in No. 22– 
535 and dispose of the pending application in No. 22A489. 
II 
We ultimately do not address Brown and Taylor's argu-
ment that the Department failed to observe proper proce-
dures in promulgating the Plan. “We have `an obligation to 
assure ourselves' of litigants' standing under Article III” be-
fore proceeding to the merits of a case. DaimlerChrysler 
Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U. S. 332, 340 (2006) (quoting Friends of 
the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), 
Inc., 528 U. S. 167, 180 (2000)). And because we conclude 
that Brown and Taylor lack standing, “[t]his case begins and 
ends with standing.” Carney v. Adams, 592 U. S. –––, ––– 
(2020). In particular, we hold that Brown and Taylor fail to 
Page Proof Pending Publication

Cite as: 600 U. S. 551 (2023) 561 
Opinion of the Court 
establish that any injury they suffer from not having their 
loans forgiven is fairly traceable to the Plan. 
A 
Our authority under the Constitution is limited to resolv-
ing “Cases” or “Controversies.” Art. III, § 2. “The doc-
trine of standing,” among others, “implements this” limit on 
our authority. Carney, 592 U. S., at –––. Our jurispru-
dence has “established that the irreducible constitutional 
minimum of standing contains three elements” that a plain-
tiff must plead and—ultimately—prove. Lujan v. Defend-
ers of Wildlife , 504 U. S. 555, 560 (1992). “First, the plaintiff 
must have suffered an `injury in fact' ” that is both “concrete 
and particularized” and “actual or imminent, not conjectural 
or hypothetical.” Ibid. (some internal quotation marks 
omitted). Second, the plaintiff's injury must be “fairly 
traceable to the challenged action of the defendant,” meaning 
that “there must be a causal connection between the injury 
and the conduct complained of.” Ibid. (internal quotation 
marks and alterations omitted). “Third, it must be `likely,' 
as opposed to merely `speculative,' that the injury will be 
redressed by a favorable decision.” Id., at 561 (some inter-
nal quotation marks omitted). 
We have found, however, that when a statute affords a 
litigant “a procedural right to protect his concrete interests,” 
the litigant may establish Article III jurisdiction without 
meeting the usual “standards for redressability and immedi-
acy.” Id., at 572, n. 7. For example, we hypothesized a per-
son “living adjacent to the site for proposed construction of 
a federally licensed dam” and explained that this person “has 
standing to challenge the licensing agency's failure to pre-
pare an environmental impact statement, even though he 
cannot establish with any certainty that the statement will 
cause the license to be withheld or altered.” Ibid. In this 
context, the fact that the defendant might well come to the 
Page Proof Pending Publication

562 DEP ARTMENT OF EDUCATION v. BROWN 
Opinion of the Court 
same decision after abiding by the contested procedural re-
quirement does not deprive a plaintiff of standing. 
Regardless of the redressability showing we have toler-
ated in the procedural-rights context, we have never held a 
litigant who asserts such a right is excused from demonstrat-
ing that it has a “concrete interest that is affected by the 
deprivation” of the claimed right. Summers v. Earth Is-
land Institute , 555 U. S. 488, 496–497 (2009). 
We emphasized this requirement in Summers, where we 
were asked to review U. S. Forest Service regulations ex-
empting certain minor land-management decisions from the 
typical notice-and-comment process. Id., at 490–491. The 
plaintiffs in that case did not have any “concrete plans to 
observe nature in [a] specifc area” affected by actions the 
Service took pursuant to this exemption, id., at 497, and we 
therefore held that they lacked standing, id., at 494–497. As 
we put it, the “deprivation of a procedural right without 
some concrete interest that is affected by the deprivation— 
a procedural right in vacuo —is insuffcient to create Arti-
cle III standing.” Id., at 496. 
B 
Before applying this framework, we pause to explain both 
respondents' theory of standing and the substance of their 
claim, which have not always been readily ascertainable—or 
consistently described—during this litigation. 
Upon initial inspection, respondents' merits theory ap-
pears to be in tension with the possibility that the Depart-
ment could redress their injury. Respondents argue simul-
taneously (1) that the Department might have treated them 
more generously if it had solicited their input in developing 
the Plan and (2) that the Department lacks substantive au-
thority to promulgate broad-based loan forgiveness under 
the HEROES Act. It would be quite odd for Brown and 
Taylor to complain about being unable to seek an increase 
in the scope of an administrative action that they think the 
Department cannot lawfully take. 
Page Proof Pending Publication

Cite as: 600 U. S. 551 (2023) 563 
Opinion of the Court 
Respondents belatedly attempted to address this strange 
feature of their argument. Their complaint does not say a 
word about standing. But in their reply supporting their 
motion in the District Court for an injunction against the 
Plan, they ventured a brief attempt to explain their position 
on this threshold issue. They insisted that the Department 
cannot adopt the Plan under the HEROES Act regardless 
of the procedures it follows. Reply in No. 4:22–cv–908 
(ND Tex., Oct. 20, 2022), ECF Doc. 26, pp. 3–4. But they 
observed that the Department has claimed it also has author-
ity to forgive loans under a different statute, the Higher Ed-
ucation Act of 1965 (HEA), which authorizes the Secretary 
to “compromise, waive, or release any right, title, claim, lien, 
or demand.” 20 U. S. C. § 1082(a)(6). Thus, respondents ar-
gued, there is a chance that vacating the Plan would prompt 
the Department to pursue loan relief under the HEA instead. 
In this Court, Brown and Taylor discuss the HEA at length 
for the frst time in this litigation. See Brief for Respond-
ents 28–32. 
Having recounted this history, we now understand re-
spondents' claim and theory of standing as follows. First, 
because the HEROES Act does not substantively authorize 
the Plan, the Department was obligated to follow the typical 
negotiated-rulemaking and notice-and-comment require -
ments. Second, if the Department had observed those pro-
cedures, respondents might have used those opportunities 
to convince the Department (1) that proceeding under the 
HEROES Act is unlawful or otherwise undesirable, and 
(2) that it should adopt a different loan-forgiveness plan under 
the HEA instead, one that is more generous to them than the 
HEROES Act plan that they allege is unlawful. They as-
sert there is at least a chance that this series of events will 
come to pass now if we vacate the Plan. Id., at 19. 
C 
Describing respondents' claim illustrates how unusual it is. 
They claim they are injured because the Government has not 
Page Proof Pending Publication

564 DEP ARTMENT OF EDUCATION v. BROWN 
Opinion of the Court 
adopted a lawful benefts program under which they would 
qualify for assistance. But the same could be said of anyone 
who might beneft from a benefts program that the Govern-
ment has not chosen to adopt. It is diffcult to see how such 
an injury could be particular (since all people suffer it) or 
concrete (since an as-yet-uncreated benefts plan is necessar-
ily “ `abstract' ” and not “ `real' ”).
1 Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 
578 U. S. 330, 340 (2016); see also Allen v. Wright, 468 U. S. 
737, 755–756 (1984) (rejecting a theory that would “extend 
[standing] nationwide”). Nor have we ever accepted that an 
injury is redressable when the prospect of redress turns on 
the Government's wholly discretionary decision to create a 
new regulatory or benefts program. 
Nonetheless, we think the defciencies of respondents' 
claim are clearest with respect to traceability. They can-
not show that their purported injury of not receiving loan 
relief under the HEA is fairly traceable to the Department's 
(allegedly unlawful) decision to grant loan relief under the 
HEROES Act. 
1 
At the outset, we reiterate what respondents' claim is not. 
Respondents are not claiming that they are injured by not 
being included in the Plan (or, in Taylor's case, by being 
remunerated by the Plan less generously than he thinks him-
self entitled to). After all, they think the Plan is substan-
tively unlawful, a merits contention that “we accept as valid” 
for purposes of analyzing standing. Federal Election 
Comm'n v. Ted Cruz for Senate , 596 U. S. –––, ––– (2022). 
It would be quite strange to think that a party experiences 
an Article III injury by not being affected by an unlawful 
action (in Brown's case) or not being more affected by such 
action (in Taylor's). 
1 In contrast, a claim of unlawful exclusion from an existing benefts 
program can be ft for judicial resolution. See, e. g., Trinity Lutheran 
Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, 582 U. S. 449, 462 (2017). 
Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication
Cite as: 600 U. S. 551 (2023) 565 
Opinion of the Court 
Instead, respondents seek relief under a separate statu-
tory source. They name the HEA as that potential source, 
but presumably they would be pleased for the Department 
to invoke any other lawful source (if one exists) as grounds 
for granting them loan relief. Their interest is in obtaining 
loan forgiveness in general. 
The Plan, however, is independent of any student-loan re-
lief the Department might craft under the HEA (or any other 
statute). A decision by this Court that the Plan is lawful 
would have no effect on the Department's ability to forgive 
respondents' loans under the HEA.
2 Thus, the Plan poses 
no legal obstacle to the Department's choosing to fnd other 
ways to remedy the harm respondents experience from not 
having their loans forgiven. 
Put differently, the Department's decision to give other 
people relief under a different statutory scheme did not 
cause respondents not to obtain the benefts they want. 
The cause of their supposed injury is far more pedestrian 
than that: The Department has simply chosen not to give 
them the relief they want. Ordinarily, a party's recourse to 
induce an agency to take a desired action is to fle not a 
lawsuit, but a “petition for the issuance, amendment, or re-
peal of a rule.” 5 U. S. C. § 553(e). The denial of such a 
petition “must be justifed by a statement of reasons,” which 
in turn “can be appealed to the courts” if the litigant has 
standing to maintain such a suit. Auer v. Robbins, 519 U. S. 
452, 459 (1997). Contesting a separate benefts program 
based on a theory that it crowds out the desired one, how-
ever, is an approach for which we have been unable to fnd 
any precedent. 
It is true that in procedural-standing cases, we tolerate 
uncertainty over whether observing certain procedures 
would have led to (caused) a different substantive outcome, 
2 We do not opine on the substantive lawfulness of any action the De-
partment might take under the HEA or add anything to our construction 
of the HEROES Act as set forth in today's opinion in Nebraska.

Page Proof Pending Publication
566 DEP ARTMENT OF EDUCATION v. BROWN 
Opinion of the Court 
as with Lujan's example of the dam and the bypassed envi-
ronmental impact statement. See 504 U. S., at 572, n. 7. In 
this case, however, the causal uncertainty is not merely over 
whether observing certain procedures would have led to a 
different substantive outcome. Instead, the uncertainty 
concerns whether the substantive decisions the Department 
has made regarding the Plan under the HEROES Act have 
a causal relationship with other substantive decisions re-
spondents want the Department to make under the HEA. 
There is no precedent for tolerating this sort of causal 
uncertainty. 
Our other procedural-standing cases demonstrate the 
point. In the example posited in Lujan, proceeding with 
building the dam as planned and simultaneously sparing the 
adjacent landowner from the negative effects of the dam are 
mutually exclusive options. See ibid. While it might be 
uncertain whether undertaking an environmental impact 
statement would prevent the dam from being built, it is clear 
that building the dam would directly injure the landowner. 
Similarly, in a case like Summers, it might be uncertain 
whether public comment would alter any particular land-
management decision the Forest Service makes. There 
would be no uncertainty, however, that a plaintiff with con-
crete plans to observe nature in a particular area “would 
be harmed if the [land-management project] went forward 
without incorporation of the ideas he would have suggested” 
in his comments. 555 U. S., at 494.
3 
Accordingly, Brown and Taylor need not allege that ob-
serving negotiated rulemaking and notice and comment 
would “ `force' ” the Department to reach substantive results 
3 Although no plaintiff in Summers had standing because none had 
alleged specifc plans to observe nature in one of the areas at issue in 
the case, see 555 U. S., at 500, the point remains that, in an equivalent 
case featuring those specifc plans, environmental damage to such a plain-
tiff's esthetic interests could fairly be traced to the Service's land-
management choices.

Cite as: 600 U. S. 551 (2023) 567 
Opinion of the Court 
more favorable to them than those embodied in the Plan. 
Lemon v. Geren, 514 F. 3d 1312, 1314–1315 (CADC 2008). 
But they must still show—pursuant to our customary trace-
ability standards—that the Plan's substance causes their in-
jury by impairing loan relief under the HEA. 
Brown and Taylor cannot meet this standard. “It is 
purely speculative whether the denia[l]” of HEA loan re-
lief—their ostensible injury—“fairly can be traced to” the 
Department's decision to grant loan relief in the Plan. 
Simon v. Eastern Ky. Welfare Rights Organization, 426 
U. S. 26, 42–43 (1976); see also Warth v. Seldin, 422 U. S. 490, 
503–504 (1975). 
As noted above, HEROES Act loan relief and HEA loan 
relief function independently of each other. If the Depart-
ment may lawfully grant loan relief under both the HEROES 
Act and the HEA, it is entitled to choose to do both, neither, 
or only one (provided that it suffciently explains its reason-
ing, see 5 U. S. C. § 706(2)(A)). There is little reason to think 
that its discretionary decision to pursue one mechanism of 
loan relief has anything to do with its discretionary decision 
to pursue (or not pursue) another. “The line of causation 
between” the Department's promulgation of the Plan and re-
spondents' lack of benefts under the HEA “is attenuated 
at best,” Allen, 468 U. S., at 757, and all too dependent on 
“ `conjecture,' ” Summers, 555 U. S., at 496. 
2 
Respondents' attempts to tie the Plan to potential HEA 
relief are unavailing. They point to a handful of documents 
related to the Plan that say that the Department is providing 
“one-time” student-loan relief. See, e. g., App. 215, 221, 225. 
Such statements, Brown and Taylor argue, show that the 
decision to grant loan relief under the HEROES Act fore-
closed HEA relief. 
This is insuffcient. The Plan itself—the action under re-
view here—contains no reference to “one-time” relief. See 
Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication
568 DEP ARTMENT OF EDUCATION v. BROWN 
Opinion of the Court 
87 Fed. Reg. 61512–61514. And to the extent that the De-
partment's decision to adopt the Plan under the HEROES 
Act might have some incidental effect on the likelihood that 
the Department will undertake a separate loan-forgiveness 
program under a different statute, the relationship is not suf-
fciently close to persuade us that the latter is fairly traceable 
to the former. See, e. g., Simon, 426 U. S., at 42–43 (accept-
ing that certain tax rules might “ `encourag[e]' ” or “ `discour-
age' ” particular behavior, but nonetheless holding that con-
nection to be insuffcient to establish standing where it was 
“just as plausible” that actors would “forgo favorable tax 
treatment”). Moreover, no one argues that the existing ref-
erences to one-time relief are legally binding. To whatever 
extent the Department has determined that the Plan crowds 
out other efforts to forgive student loans, that, too, is a dis-
cretionary and independent decision that respondents may 
ask it to reconsider with a § 553(e) petition. 
Finally, Brown and Taylor also argue that they have dem-
onstrated causation because the Secretary's failure to ob-
serve the requisite procedural rules cost them a “ `chance' ” 
to “obtain debt forgiveness.” Brief for Respondents 28. 
But referring in the abstract to a “chance” of obtaining “debt 
forgiveness” does not solve their problem. They do not 
want debt forgiveness under the HEROES Act, which they 
claim is unlawful. They want debt forgiveness under the 
HEA. Nothing the Secretary has done deprives them of a 
“chance” to seek that result. 
Because respondents cannot meaningfully connect the ab-
sence of loan relief under the HEA to the adoption of the 
Plan, they have failed to show that their injury is fairly 
traceable to the Plan. 
* * * 
For these reasons, respondents lack standing, and we 
therefore vacate the judgment of the District Court and re-
mand the case with instructions to dismiss. By vacating the

Cite as: 600 U. S. 551 (2023) 569 
Opinion of the Court 
District Court's judgment, we obviate the need to grant the 
interim relief the Department requests in its application in 
No. 22A489. We therefore deny the application as moot. 
It is so ordered. 
Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication
Reporter’s Note 
The attached opinion has been revised to refect the usual publication 
and citation style of the United States Reports. The revised pagination 
makes available the offcial United States Reports citation in advance of 
publication. The syllabus has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions 
for the convenience of the reader and constitutes no part of the opinion of 
the Court. A list of counsel who argued or fled briefs in this case, and 
who were members of the bar of this Court at the time this case was 
argued, has been inserted following the syllabus. Other revisions may 
include adjustments to formatting, captions, citation form, and any errant 
punctuation. The following additional edits were made: 
None

Retrieval chunks

• #1

  PRELIMINARY PRINT Volume 600 U. S. Part 1 Pages 551–569 OFFICIAL REPORTS OF THE SUPREME COURT June 30, 2023 REBECCA A. WOMELDORF reporter of decisions Page Proof Pending Publication NOTICE: This preliminary print is subject to formal revision before the bound volume is published. Users are requested to noti…

• #2

  rulemaking and notice and comment. The District Court rejected their argument regarding the scope of the HEROES Act's procedural exemp- tions, but nevertheless vacated the Plan as substantively unauthorized. This Court granted certiorari before judgment to consider this case alongside Biden v. Nebraska, No. 22–506…

• #3

  Pp. 562–563. (c) Respondents' standing claim most clearly fails on traceability: They cannot show that their purported injury of not receiving loan relief under the HEA is fairly traceable to the Department's (allegedly unlaw- ful) decision to grant loan relief under the HEROES Act. Pp. 563–569. (1) Signifcantly,…

• #4

  are unavailing. Although the Department has occasionally referred to “one-time” student-loan relief in publicizing the Plan, the Plan itself con- tains no such reference. And any incidental effect of the Plan on the likelihood that the Department will undertake a separate loan- forgiveness program under a differen…

• #5

  Mark Griffn, Arturo G. Michel, James D. Smiertka, Peter M. Bollinger, Leslie J. Girard, John P . Markovs, Diana P . Cortes, Sheena Hamilton, Lyndsey M. Olson, and Ronald A. Hope; for the National Education Asso- ciation by Alice O'Brien and Jeffrey W. Burritt; for Samuel L. Bray et al. by Melissa Arbus Sherry; and…

• #6

  W. McConnell et al. by William R. Levi; for Howard McKeon et al. by Caleb Kruckenberg; and for 128 U. S. Representatives et al. by Jennifer L. Mascott and R. Trent McCotter . Briefs of amici curiae were fled for the Commonwealth of Massachu- setts et al. by Elizabeth N. Dewar, Acting Attorney General of Massachu- …

• #7

  including respondents here—sued to enjoin it. Respondents are two individual borrowers who, for different reasons, do not qualify for the maximum relief available under the Plan. They argue that the Department of Education promulgated the Plan without following mandatory procedures known as (1) negotiated rulemak…

• #8

  tions that represent students, institutions of higher educa- tion, State student grant agencies, guaranty agencies, lenders, secondary markets, loan servicers, guaranty agency servicers, and collection agencies.” § 1098a(a)(1). Then, informed by this consultation, the Secretary must submit draft regulations for c…

• #9

  turns principally on the income of a student's family when the student applies to and is enrolled in the relevant educa- tional program (almost always undergraduate study). See §§ 1070a(b)(2), 1087mm(a), 1091; see also 34 CFR § 690.6(c) (2022) (limited eligibility for students in a qualifying “post- baccalaureate…

• #10

  ments of negotiated rulemaking and notice and comment. As a result, they claim, we should “[v]acate and set aside the” Plan under 5 U. S. C. § 706(2)(D). App. 186. Brown and Taylor recognize that the HEROES Act sup- plies exemptions from these procedural requirements. They argue, however, that an action of the Se…

• #11

  establish that any injury they suffer from not having their loans forgiven is fairly traceable to the Plan. A Our authority under the Constitution is limited to resolv- ing “Cases” or “Controversies.” Art. III, § 2. “The doc- trine of standing,” among others, “implements this” limit on our authority. Carney, 592…

• #12

  land Institute , 555 U. S. 488, 496–497 (2009). We emphasized this requirement in Summers, where we were asked to review U. S. Forest Service regulations ex- empting certain minor land-management decisions from the typical notice-and-comment process. Id., at 490–491. The plaintiffs in that case did not have any “…

• #13

  or demand.” 20 U. S. C. § 1082(a)(6). Thus, respondents ar- gued, there is a chance that vacating the Plan would prompt the Department to pursue loan relief under the HEA instead. In this Court, Brown and Taylor discuss the HEA at length for the frst time in this litigation. See Brief for Respond- ents 28–32. Ha…

• #14

  At the outset, we reiterate what respondents' claim is not. Respondents are not claiming that they are injured by not being included in the Plan (or, in Taylor's case, by being remunerated by the Plan less generously than he thinks him- self entitled to). After all, they think the Plan is substan- tively unlawful…

• #15

  standing to maintain such a suit. Auer v. Robbins, 519 U. S. 452, 459 (1997). Contesting a separate benefts program based on a theory that it crowds out the desired one, how- ever, is an approach for which we have been unable to fnd any precedent. It is true that in procedural-standing cases, we tolerate uncerta…

• #16

  alleged specifc plans to observe nature in one of the areas at issue in the case, see 555 U. S., at 500, the point remains that, in an equivalent case featuring those specifc plans, environmental damage to such a plain- tiff's esthetic interests could fairly be traced to the Service's land- management choices. Ci…

• #17

  partment's decision to adopt the Plan under the HEROES Act might have some incidental effect on the likelihood that the Department will undertake a separate loan-forgiveness program under a different statute, the relationship is not suf- fciently close to persuade us that the latter is fairly traceable to the for…

• #18

  publication. The syllabus has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader and constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court. A list of counsel who argued or fled briefs in this case, and who were members of the bar of this Court at the time this case was argued, has been inserted…