Department of Education v. Brown
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in Department of Education v. Brown and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of Department of Education v. Brown.
The Supreme Court reviewed a case involving a student-loan debt-forgiveness plan announced by the Secretary of Education under the HEROES Act. The respondents, who did not qualify for maximum relief, challenged the plan's procedural validity. The Court found that the respondents lacked Article III standing to pursue their claim.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in Department of Education v. Brown.
The Court held that the respondents lacked Article III standing, so the Court had no jurisdiction to address their procedural claim.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in Department of Education v. Brown. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Standing is relevant to Department of Education v. Brown
The Court's decision is based on the respondents' lack of Article III standing, which is central to the holding.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)Because respondents fail to establish that any injury they suffer from not having their loans forgiven is fairly traceable to the Plan, they lack Article III standing, so the Court has no jurisdiction to address their procedural claim.
-
Why Judicial Review is relevant to Department of Education v. Brown
The Court's authority to review the case is limited by the standing requirement, which is a fundamental aspect of judicial review.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The Court's authority under the Constitution is limited to resolving 'Cases' or 'Controversies.' Art. III, § 2.
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in Department of Education v. Brown that support the summary and concepts above.
"This case begins and ends with standing."
"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 decision."
