Page:Department of Education v. Brown.pdf/10

6 Act exempts from procedural requirements only those actions that the Act substantively authorizes. But the District Court nonetheless held that the Plan exceeds the Secretary’s authority under the HEROES Act and therefore entered judgment vacating it. ___ F. Supp. 3d ___, ___, 2022 WL 16858525, *15 (ND Tex., Nov. 10, 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 alternative 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.

We ultimately do not address Brown and Taylor’s argument that the Department failed to observe proper procedures in promulgating the Plan. “We have ‘an obligation to assure ourselves’ of litigants’ standing under Article III” before 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) (slip op., at 4). In particular, we hold that Brown and Taylor fail to establish that any injury they suffer from not having their loans forgiven is fairly traceable to the Plan.

Our authority under the Constitution is limited to resolving “Cases” or “Controversies.” Art. III, §2. “The doctrine of standing,” among others, “implements this” limit on our