Page:Department of Education v. Brown.pdf/6

2 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’ procedural 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 pending appeal.

The Court’s opinion in Biden v. Nebraska, ___ U. S. ___ (2023), recounts the relevant background of the HEROES Act, so only a brief summary is provided here. The Act authorizes the Secretary of Education “to waive or modify any provision” applicable to federal “student financial assistance” programs “as may be necessary to ensure that … recipients of student financial assistance” who live or work in a declared disaster area, or suffer direct economic hardship as a result of a national emergency, “are not placed in a worse position financially in relation to that financial 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 implement any “waivers and modifications authorized or required” by the Act without engaging in the “negotiated rulemaking” that is typically required before proposing