Your Guide to the Brunner Test: Student Loans & Bankruptcy

The information contained in this article is provided for general educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or create an attorney–client relationship. Bankruptcy and student-loan discharge laws vary by jurisdiction and may change over time. You should not rely on this material as a substitute for personalized legal counsel. Every case depends on its own facts, financial records, and applicable court rulings.

If you are considering filing for bankruptcy or pursuing a student-loan discharge, consult a licensed attorney experienced in federal bankruptcy practice in your state. The Independence Law Firm expressly disclaims all liability with respect to actions taken or not taken based on any content within this publication.

For most people buried under student debt, the idea of student loan debt relief through bankruptcy sounds impossible. That assumption comes from decades of half-truths, outdated headlines, and people repeating that “student loans can’t be discharged.”

The truth is more nuanced—and far more hopeful. Every year, debtors across the country achieve full or partial discharge under a framework known as the Brunner Test, a standard that federal courts still use to decide when repayment would create an undue hardship.

At The Independence Law Firm, we’ve guided hundreds of clients through this exact process. Many arrive expecting a dead end; what they discover instead is a structured legal test that rewards preparation, documentation, and credible storytelling. If you understand how judges interpret each of Brunner’s three prongs—poverty, persistence, and good faith—you can turn what seems like an immovable standard into a viable legal argument.

The Origin and Reach of the Brunner Test

The Brunner Test was born out of a 1987 Second Circuit decision, Brunner v. New York State Higher Education Services Corp., which set the precedent that still shapes most bankruptcy courts’ approach to student loan discharge. It’s a three-part inquiry into whether repayment would impose an undue hardship on the debtor and their dependents.

Over time, most federal circuits—specifically the Second through Eleventh, excluding the First and Eighth—have adopted, adapted, or applied the Brunner framework. That means nearly every debtor in the United States is evaluated through some variation of this test. Only a handful of regions apply alternative standards, such as the “totality of the circumstances” test used in the Eighth Circuit.

That’s important. The same facts presented in different jurisdictions can lead to distinct outcomes depending on local precedent, circuit philosophy, and even individual judges’ interpretations. Our firm tracks those differences closely; it’s how we know when to frame a case around poverty calculations, when to lean on vocational limits, and when to argue evolving hardship trends supported by federal guidance.

The Three Prongs of the Brunner Test

Each prong asks a different question—but together, they tell the story of your financial reality. The court doesn’t just want numbers; it wants a picture of your life that aligns with what the law defines as undue hardship.

Let’s unpack the first and most misunderstood component.

Prong One: Poverty — Demonstrating Current Inability to Pay

The first prong asks whether you could maintain a minimal standard of living for yourself and your dependents if you were forced to repay your student loans. This part is to show that your finances are already stretched so tightly that loan payments would cut into essentials. Courts routinely note that “minimal” doesn’t mean survival at the poverty line—it means basic stability within modern life.

What a “Minimal Standard of Living” Really Means

Judges often look for signs that your household budget supports reasonable human needs without excess. For example:

• Safe, modest housing—not luxury apartments, but not unsafe conditions either
• Reliable transportation suited to your area’s job market and infrastructure
• Adequate food, utilities, and healthcare access
• Basic communication—phone and internet are now considered necessities for employment and daily function

In practice, the court evaluates whether there’s anything left to cut without crossing into deprivation. Most successful cases demonstrate that the debtor has already reduced discretionary spending and that even small payments would compromise necessities.

How to Build Proof for Prong One

A strong poverty argument rests on data and documentation, not anecdotes. We start by building a paper trail that proves every line of your financial reality.

Income Analysis

• Identify all income sources, from wages to disability or public benefits
• Differentiate between gross and net income, accounting for taxes and withholdings
• Analyze income stability—are hours consistent, or is there chronic underemployment?
• Highlight reliance on overtime or gig work that isn’t guaranteed

Expense Documentation

• Produce detailed monthly budgets that mirror your actual life, not averages
• Separate essential from discretionary spending and document each with receipts, statements, or rent agreements
• Adjust for regional cost of living—$2,000 rent means different things in Orlando versus Los Angeles.
• Factor in dependents, medical needs, and inflationary pressure on basic goods

From there, we calculate what really matters:
income minus necessary expenses. If that number is zero—or worse, negative—you’ve met the financial foundation for Brunner’s first prong. The math must be airtight, but the story must be human. When a judge reads that you’ve cut cable, sold your car, or postponed dental care to stay afloat, it turns an abstract spreadsheet into a credible hardship narrative.

The Power of Corroboration

It’s often possible to supplement budgets with third-party evidence—letters from employers confirming inconsistent hours, documentation of rent hikes, or statements from social workers or doctors verifying economic strain. These small details make a case real. Courts respond not to emotion, but to tangible patterns that show sustained effort and genuine constraint.

Prong Two: Persistence — Showing That the Hardship Isn’t Temporary/Fleeting

If the first prong of the Brunner Test is about your financial present, the second is about your financial future. It asks whether your inability to repay your student loans is likely to continue for a significant portion of the repayment period. Courts may call this “additional circumstances,” but what they’re looking for is proof that your hardship isn’t a passing “rough patch”—that it’s structural, not situational.

This is the prong that separates hopeful from realistic. Anyone can hit a bad year, lose a job, or face medical bills. Persistence means you can show, with evidence, that your circumstances are expected to remain substantially the same for years to come. Judges know life changes, but they also know patterns rarely lie.

The Meaning of “Additional Circumstances”

Federal courts have interpreted this prong to include a wide spectrum of realities, from long-term medical conditions to age-related employment barriers. The list isn’t fixed, but strong cases usually fall into categories that illustrate enduring financial limitation.

Medical or Disability Factors

• Chronic or progressive conditions that restrict employment options
• Mental health diagnoses that interfere with consistent work
• Required ongoing treatment or medication with substantial costs
• Physician or vocational statements documenting functional limitations

One example: a former teacher with multiple sclerosis who can only work part-time due to fatigue and relapse unpredictability. Courts routinely recognize that condition as a persistent hardship, especially when verified by ongoing medical treatment records.

Age and Workforce Considerations

• Nearing or past traditional retirement age
• Skills or education that are no longer marketable
• Employment sectors that penalize older workers
• Physical decline in jobs requiring manual labor

An older student loan debtor working in a physically demanding trade, such as warehouse operations or nursing, might show a clear trajectory of diminishing hours and opportunities, especially when paired with supporting data from industry labor reports.

Career and Economic Realities

• Degrees in fields that no longer sustain viable income levels
• Industries disrupted by automation, outsourcing, or structural decline
• Geographic limitations preventing relocation or retraining
• Documented underemployment despite active job searching

For instance, borrowers from defunct for-profit schools who received degrees that employers no longer value often demonstrate persistent hardship through the mismatch between credential and earning potential.

Family and Care Responsibilities

• Dependents requiring significant care or medical attention
• Elder care obligations that limit work hours or mobility
• Custody arrangements restricting relocation or schedule flexibility
• Medical debt arising from dependents’ ongoing needs

These are not excuses—they’re documentation of priorities the law recognizes as reasonable. The point is to show that even full effort won’t change the equation.

How We Build the Persistence Argument

We layer documentation from multiple angles:

• Medical expert statements connecting diagnosis to employability
• Vocational evaluations projecting realistic earning potential
• Economic and labor data contextualizing job prospects in your field
• Historical income records showing stability or decline over time

The best cases don’t rely on sympathy; they rely on trajectory. Judges respect data that proves your condition or situation isn’t likely to reverse. In some cases, persistence becomes self-evident—such as with chronic illness, permanent disability, or advanced age—but we still reinforce it with narrative structure: who you were before, what changed, and why recovery isn’t feasible in a reasonable time frame.

Sometimes, that story is simple. A 58-year-old debtor with limited retirement savings and a modest wage trajectory won’t suddenly double their income. The law doesn’t expect miracles, it expects realism. And that realism can be freeing—it means you’re judged by where you are, not by impossible standards. When the court sees your circumstances clearly, the path forward can become clearer too.

Prong Three: Good Faith — Proving You’ve Tried

The third prong often helps decide the case. Even if poverty and persistence are obvious, judges want to see that you’ve made sincere efforts to handle your student debt responsibly. Broadly, good faith is measured by intent and conduct.

Good faith is the human element of Brunner. It acknowledges that life doesn’t always unfold as planned but expects that debtors demonstrate some effort to meet their obligations when possible. Courts may interpret this flexibly, especially when there’s proof of communication, documentation, and initiative.

What Courts May Consider Good Faith

Repayment Attempts

• Making payments, however small, when able
• Keeping up during financially stable periods
• Attempting partial repayment through side income

Program Participation

• Applying for income-driven repayment plans or consolidations
• Seeking deferment or forbearance rather than ignoring servicer notices
• Providing documentation when hardship requests were made

Responsible Life Choices

• Demonstrating frugality: downsizing, avoiding luxury spending
• Seeking steady work even in lower-paying roles
• Prioritizing family or health in ways consistent with reason, not avoidance

Judges often take note of simple but powerful signs: a borrower who continued to send $25 payments during unemployment, or who called their loan servicer multiple times to explore options. These are not grand gestures—they’re human indicators of responsibility. When paired with honesty and full disclosure during bankruptcy proceedings, they show that your goal was survival, not evasion.

What Doesn’t Disqualify You

One of the biggest misconceptions is that you must have made substantial payments to qualify under this prong. That’s false. Courts have repeatedly found good faith even in cases where borrowers made no payments at all, provided they could prove genuine hardship.

Not understanding every program available, prioritizing medical bills or family needs, or even defaulting strategically to stay housed does not automatically undermine your case. The law recognizes that survival choices are not moral failings. The question is whether you acted with transparency, effort, and respect for process.

Building a Good Faith Narrative

It’s possible to develop your good faith argument by showing a pattern: communication logs, payment histories, applications, and personal explanations that align with reality. Often, this part of the case feels the most personal because it’s where we connect your decisions to your values. Judges notice when hardship stories are coherent and consistent.

It can be surprising how much strength this prong can add once your efforts are organized into a timeline. A simple call record showing repeated attempts to get help from loan servicers can shift a judge’s perception. It demonstrates that you didn’t wait for bankruptcy to act—you tried everything the system offered before turning to the court.

Common Myths About the Brunner Test

Over the years, the Brunner Test has taken on a reputation that doesn’t reflect the reality of how courts now apply it. Much of that stems from decades-old case law repeated out of context or from debtors who gave up before building a proper record. When handled correctly, Brunner can absolutely open the door to meaningful relief.

Myth 1: “You Must Be Totally Disabled to Qualify”

This misconception likely came from early cases where extreme circumstances won the day. But recent rulings have made it clear that total disability is not required. Judges recognize a wide range of persistent hardships, from chronic but manageable medical conditions to irreversible job market displacement.

For example, courts have approved discharges for debtors who were not disabled but whose long-term caregiving duties prevented full-time employment. Others have ruled favorably for borrowers with mental health conditions that didn’t meet the Social Security disability threshold but still impaired consistent work performance. The law asks for credible proof of limitation, not a doctor’s declaration of permanent incapacity.

Myth 2: “You Must Have a Perfect Payment History”

Broadly, good faith is about effort, not outcome. A borrower who made sporadic payments over the years, sought deferments, and kept in touch with servicers is often in a stronger position than someone who made regular payments but ignored correspondence when hardship hit.

Courts repeatedly affirm that attempts to repay, even symbolic ones, matter. The human record of trying—sending what you could, calling for help, cutting costs—carries weight. The legal test is meant to filter out bad-faith actors, not punish genuine hardship.

Myth 3: “You Can’t Have Ever Earned Good Money”

Past income doesn’t disqualify you. What matters is whether your current and foreseeable financial picture shows an inability to pay. Many professionals—nurses, IT workers, small business owners—have earned well in the past, only to face layoffs, economic downturns, or life-changing events that permanently altered their earning trajectory.

Courts look at context. Someone who once made six figures but now supports two dependents on half that income, with little room for upward mobility, isn’t penalized for past success. In fact, showing that you used to meet your obligations strengthens your credibility—it proves your circumstances truly changed.

Myth 4: “You Can Only Win Total Discharge”

Many debtors assume Brunner is all-or-nothing. In reality, courts increasingly grant partial discharges, where a portion of the loan is eliminated or the repayment terms are significantly reduced.

It’s worth noting that while Brunner itself doesn’t necessarily authorize partial discharge, courts sometimes exercise equitable powers under 11 U.S.C. § 105(a) or § 523(a)(8) to craft them. Judges often use this approach to balance fairness with feasibility: acknowledging hardship while keeping the remedy proportional.

Partial discharge can cut a $100,000 balance down to $20,000, or stretch repayment over a timeline that reflects actual earning potential. Many clients find that even a partial win frees them from financial paralysis and restores long-term stability.

The Evolving Landscape: How Courts and the Department of Education Are Changing Course

For decades, the phrase “undue hardship” was treated as an almost impossible threshold. But that rigidity has softened. In 2022, the Department of Justice and Department of Education issued new guidance encouraging fairer interpretation of Brunner, urging government attorneys to avoid reflexive opposition to discharge when evidence clearly meets the criteria.

This shift reflected growing awareness that the student loan system itself had changed dramatically since 1987. Balances ballooned, wages stagnated, and borrowers carried debt into retirement. The courts have started to respond in kind.

How Guidance Can Affect Cases

Judges are often more open today to practical discharge outcomes, especially for debtors with strong documentation and transparent histories. It isn’t guaranteed, but we’ve seen a trend:

• Greater acceptance of partial discharges
  
• Increased reliance on income-based metrics and expense realism
  
• Reduced skepticism toward good-faith debtors with chronic hardship
• Broader interpretation of “minimal standard of living” in light of modern costs

What this means in practice is that Brunner is no longer the impenetrable wall it once seemed. The burden of proof still exists, but it’s achievable with disciplined preparation. Many courts have moved from punishing borrowers to evaluating them on evidence and sincerity.

A quiet shift has also occurred in how judges write their opinions. You see more acknowledgment of human factors—aging parents, dependent care, medical inflation. These are signals that judicial culture is catching up with economic reality. And that’s why documentation and timing matter more than ever.

Strategic Considerations for Building a Brunner Case

The strongest cases don’t just meet the three prongs—they anticipate the skepticism behind each one. At The Independence Law Firm, we treat every Brunner petition like a litigation project, not a form filing. Here’s how strategy transforms odds.

Timing

Filing too early, before hardship is fully documented, can undermine your case. Courts look for persistence; if your situation appears recent or reversible, they may interpret it as temporary.

The ideal time to file is when:

• Medical or vocational reports clearly show long-term limitations
• Income has stabilized at a low level over multiple years
• All realistic repayment options have been exhausted or proven unworkable

Sometimes, waiting six months to build a stronger paper trail—employment logs, budget patterns, medical updates—can make the difference between denial and discharge.

Jurisdiction and Judge Awareness

Brunner is federal law, but interpretation is human. Each circuit, and often each judge, has its own leanings. Some require more rigorous documentation; others give wider latitude to debtor testimony. Experience across jurisdictions helps anticipate what evidence will resonate.

For example, courts in the Ninth and Tenth Circuits tend to emphasize persistence and good faith over strict poverty math, whereas others adhere closely to numerical analysis. Knowing where flexibility exists allows us to allocate resources strategically—more vocational data in one jurisdiction, more budget detail in another.

Narrative Construction

In any Brunner case, your story is your evidence. Judges are human readers before they are legal arbiters. A disorganized narrative makes hardship look exaggerated; a structured one builds credibility. We build your record chronologically, pairing documents with the human context behind them.

That’s often where the case becomes real: when your paystubs, medical records, and service history align to show a consistent, uncontrived life pattern. It’s one of those details you only appreciate after doing this work for years—judges aren’t swayed by adjectives, they’re swayed by coherence.

Why the Brunner Test Isn’t the Barrier It Used to Be

The idea that student loans can’t be discharged was never absolute law—it was an assumption built on outdated fear. In the last five years, hundreds of debtors across the country have proven otherwise. Courts have begun recognizing that hardship in today’s economy looks different than it did in 1987. The cost of healthcare, housing, and education has outpaced income for decades. Judges are now incorporating those realities into their decisions.

Borrowers who approach the process with precision and patience can now achieve relief once considered impossible. The Brunner Test, when properly understood, becomes not a wall but a map—a series of coordinates that, if documented honestly, lead to discharge or meaningful reduction.

How The Independence Law Firm Approaches Brunner Cases

Every client’s situation is different, but the framework we use is consistent:

1. Diagnose the Case — Analyze all three prongs early using our internal Brunner evaluation model to determine strength and direction.
2. Document Everything — Gather months of expense data, loan histories, and third-party confirmations to lock down factual precision.
3. Build Expert Layers — Incorporate medical, vocational, and economic assessments when appropriate to strengthen persistence evidence.
4. Construct the Narrative — Organize evidence into a credible life story that aligns with the legal structure of the test.
5. Advocate Strategically — Tailor presentation to local precedent and judicial preference while remaining grounded in federal standards.

We’ve seen firsthand how preparation changes perception. A judge might begin a case skeptical and end it understanding that repayment truly constitutes undue hardship. When that happens, Brunner becomes what it was always meant to be—a safety valve for honest debtors seeking a second chance.

Moving Forward

If you’ve been told that student loans are impossible to discharge, it’s time to revisit that assumption with facts. The Brunner Test is a framework that rewards transparency, discipline, and expert advocacy.

The Independence Law Firm has spent years refining how these cases are built—from documentation templates to narrative structure—and we’ve helped clients across multiple jurisdictions achieve full and partial discharges.

If you’re ready to find out whether your circumstances align with the Brunner criteria, schedule a detailed evaluation. We’ll analyze every prong of the test, identify your strongest arguments, and map a path forward.

Student loan discharge via bankruptcy law isn’t theoretical anymore—it’s happening, one case at a time, for those who prepare the right way.

The Independence Law Firm offers free consultations to help you understand your options about student loan debt and bankruptcy. Call 855-255-7678 today or click here to schedule an appointment online.

The information contained in this article is provided for general educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or create an attorney–client relationship. Bankruptcy and student-loan discharge laws vary by jurisdiction and may change over time. You should not rely on this material as a substitute for personalized legal counsel. Every case depends on its own facts, financial records, and applicable court rulings.

If you are considering filing for bankruptcy or pursuing a student-loan discharge, consult a licensed attorney experienced in federal bankruptcy practice in your state. The Independence Law Firm expressly disclaims all liability with respect to actions taken or not taken based on any content within this publication.