> This is a brief, not the ruling of the court.

I'm aware, but in the brief they said that a plain text reading of the HEROES act gave the president this power. Since it's a brief is that meaningless? I don't really know how briefs are created.

And I wasn't aware the doctrine existed before, thanks. Though apparently the term was never used in a majority opinion until this court.

Briefs are submitted to the court by parties involved in the litigation before the court even hears oral arguments on the case. They are one-sided arguments, not holdings of the court.

That brief is written by the Biden administration. The Biden administration argued that a plain text reading of the HEROES act gave the president this power. The majority ruling by SCOTUS did not agree.

From Justice Kagan’s dissent: “Wielding its judicially manufactured heightened-specificity requirement, the Court refuses to acknowledge the plain words of the HEROES Act.” (p. 28)

So Justice Kagan would agree that a plain text reading would give the administration the power to forgive outstanding loan balances. However, the majority’s ruling was that the “text of the HEROES Act does not authorize the Secretary’s loan forgiveness program.” (p. 3)