Abstract
The judicial landscape of student loan discharge under the Brunner test reflects both commonalities and significant divergences across circuits. While courts generally adhere to a shared framework for assessing undue hardship, they remain divided on key issues, including whether retirement savings qualify as necessary expenses, the extent to which religious tithing is protected under the Religious Liberty and Charitable Donation Protection Act (RLCDPA), and whether a debtor’s refusal to enroll in an income-driven repayment (IDR) plan constitutes bad faith under Brunner’s third prong. Courts also disagree on whether IDR eligibility should be considered under the first or second prong of Brunner. Some reject IDR as a substitute for undue hardship, while others incorporate IDR payment amounts into financial hardship assessments, even when the debtor is not enrolled. Further complicating matters, evidentiary standards vary, with some courts requiring expert testimony to establish medical hardship, while others accept debtor testimony or medical records alone. These inconsistencies create unpredictable and inequitable outcomes, making it difficult for debtors and practitioners to navigate the system. Without Supreme Court guidance or legislative reform, these disparities will likely persist, underscoring the urgent need for greater uniformity in student loan discharge determinations.
Recommended Citation
Rahaf Alrehaili,
Undue Hardship in Student Loan Bankruptcy: A Circuit-By-Circuit Analysis of Brunner,
36 U. Fla. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y
515
(2026).
Available at: https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/jlpp/vol36/iss3/3