Precedent has been set, now other judges can refer to this ruling while making their decisions.

Everybody should just stop paying their student debt. Let the system crumble.

That's not how the law works.

The "Brunner test" that the OP commenter mentioned looks at 3 things:

1) Based upon your current income and expenses, you cannot maintain a minimal standard of living for yourself and your dependents if you are forced to repay your loans.

2) Your current financial situation is likely to continue for a big part of the repayment period.

3) You have made a good faith effort to repay your student loans

In this specific instance the judge ruled the litigant had passed the Brunner test. It may have been a lenient application of the test, but the law remains the same.

Other judges cannot look at this case and abandon the Brunner test, which is what you seem to be implying should/will happen here.

If you want the system changed you'll need Congress to pass a law.

The problem with the Brunner test is that it is very rarely applied, and applied inconsistently. The test itself is incredibly vague in specifics and is pretty much at the discretion of the judges, who generally always rule on the side of the government, which makes sense, the government pays their salary.

I have one friend who is permanently disabled and spent 4 years trying to get his student loans forgiven. He gave up and fled the USA.

The courts have fought tooth and nail in the interest of their corporate overlords to prevent the Brunner test being invoked.

If more judges do the right thing and allow the Brunner test to actually be applied, it will have a significant impact.

Precedent here would be the Brunner test and its application plus quality of evidence/testimony from the defendant to support the judges decision.

Moving forward, judges can cite this as an example/landmark case without excess research or work in their own decisions. It's a good thing, I think, but definitely not a rubber stamp to discharging loans.

Sure, there's some leeway in how these vague tests are applied. But just because one judge gave a generous interpretation it doesn't mean the law has somehow changed significantly.

If judges just abandoned it they'd probably be overturned by appellate courts.

I'm not arguing the injustice of it, just reinforcing the OP commenter's point: the law has not changed, and this ruling does not materially affect that.