It's black and white in law that student loan debt is dischargeable in bankruptcy, and the newsworthy thing here is apparently the judge applying the main legal test as articulated in the case in which it was created rather than pretending to apply it while adding new and perversely punitive terms.
"Even though Section 523(a)(8) renders student loans presumptively nondischargeable, however, it
does not render them completely nondischargeable".
italics not mine. so it is all but nondischargeable.
"Even though Section 523(a)(8) renders student loans presumptively nondischargeable, however, it
does not render them completely nondischargeable. Section 523(a)(8) as currently written allows
a debtor to discharge a student loan if “excepting such debt from discharge . . . would impose an
undue hardship on the debtor and the debtor’s dependents.”
33 In order to discharge a student loan
on undue hardship grounds, the debtor must ordinarily file a separate complaint against the
creditor holding the student loan debt.
34 The debtor must then prove by a preponderance of the
evidence that repaying the student loan would impose an undue hardship on him"
BUT
"The Bankruptcy Code does not define “undue hardship,”
72 and the legislative history of Section
523 does not precisely specify how courts should determine whether a debtor qualifies for an
undue hardship discharge."
i.e. it's not written into law. it is stare decisis on the other hand that the brunner test can be used.
note i do not have student loans (i.e. no dog in this fight) but i do believe it is disingenuous to make it seem more straightforward to discharge student loan debt than it actually is. the reason this person's discharge is newsworthy is exactly because of how exceptional it is.
Probably not the thorough and detailed answer you are looking for but... Student loans are dischargeable, it's just typically extremely difficult to get them discharged. Partly because the method and law regarding when they may discharged and the process to prove/show they should be discharged isn't clearly defined and the determination is quite subjective.
I don't believe the judge changed the interpretation of the law. I believe the judge agreed with the arguments of the debtor that the facts involving his particular case warranted the ability to discharge his debt. that's it. The ruling affects this case and only this case. Other people who wish to discharge their student loan debt in bankruptcy may want to analyze the arguments and findings of this case to be better equipped to prevail in their own cases. But there is still no guarantee that a judge will agree with their arguments as every situation is different.
