the president's signature plans. >> thank you, arlette, and stick close. as we are waiting for this to get under way is joining us right now, is cnn chief legal analyst laura coates, and cnn analyst elie honig, and legal analys

ana ana analyst jeffrey, and what do you think about that elie honig? >> well, it is not if you want to open up a lawn business, but the legal question is what are the legal extent of the president through the department of education can and cannot do, and the challengers say that you went beyond what congress allows you to do, and there is a fairly broad law called the heroes act called in times of national emergency, the student debt can be modified, and the administration says we are within the scope of the law, and the question is did the executive branch go beyond what the scope of congress said they could do. >> i am curious about the case going forward when it is coming to the free speech versus the lgbtq rights. the person who is suing is basically hasn't started her business yet. she has not faced any hardship, and she has not suffered any losses, and how can someone like that bring a case before you even start your business? >> it is a great question. that is the second decision coming today and we don't know which is hitting first, and this is a procedural question, does she have standing.

and usually the courts don't issue advisory standings, because i would like to know how you will rule when this happen, because you have to wait for the actual harm, and we will see if the court throws it out on that basis, and looking at the oral argument, they will decide it on the merits and say, it is inevitable that she is going to be posed with this question. >> we are hearing that the first case that is up is the colorado case which has to do whether or not a web designer can refuse service to a same sex couple. laura coates, if we can bring you in here, and we don't know what the ruling is, but the way that the ruling is delivered is oh, so important, because how, why they open the door is really what is at issue here, laura. >> absolutely. in this case, it is so critical on a number of fronts, one, because it is dealing with the issue of what is free speech, and what constitutes free

speech. this is a web designer, and i had the chance to interview after the oral arguments in this very case, and i asked her the very case why in a prospective world she wanted to bring the case, and she said that she wanted to be sure that one day if she were in fact asked or she could be able to create her own version of art and free expression in a way that is consistent with her own personal beliefs. what colorado has been saying is that first of all in the instance of free speech, this is anti-discrimination basis they are arguing about, and the law in colorado is about regulating sales and not speech. she is free to make whatever kind of web sites she would like as templates or otherwise in a wedding venue or context the, but yet, she cannot deny the services if it is available to one versus another. people remember colorado as the state involving the wedding cakes. this is not that. this is a very different one.

>> laura, standby. let's go over to jessica schneider who has the details of the case of the 313 creative. what is decision? >> kate, the supreme court is deciding firmly on the side of the wedding designer saying that the colorado law that prohibits discrimination of sexual orientation violates wedding website's designer first amendment rights, and so this is a 6-3 decision, and written by neil gorsuch, and the decision is just coming down, and at the time i have had glancing at it briefly is again a 6-3 split with the liberal justices lashing out against this decision. it is once again justice sonya sotomayor with the biting dissent where she is saying for the first time in the history, the court is interpreting the constitution to allow discrimination. because that is exactly what the liberal justices feared and voiced in the arguments in this

case that once you open the door to this wedding website designer to refuse to service same sex couples on the basis of her free speech rights, what other businesses can claim they are creative artists or creative business owners that operate and the owners of free speech and expression, and they would take issue with servicing clients that they don't necessarily agree with. so i am just getting into the opinion a little bit more, but to take away here is that the wedding designer has proved victorious, and where she wasn't in the lower courts, and the 6-3 ruling is rule on her side saying that the colorado law violates the first amendment saying that she cannot discriminate against the same sex couples. >> digging into it, jessica, and we will dig into how neil gorsuch writes for the majority here. >> and again, we are reading the opinion, and we need to find out

the language here, and a wedding website, and a company can refuse business based on first amendment grounds. and the question is really going to be as we dig through the language, refuse business to whom, and to how many, and to how strong the religious rationale has to be. >> so, what is interesting here, john, in, i think three minutes i have had to read 70 pages is that what the court here is doing is that really pitting this idea of first amendment rights against, you know, kind of this question of what constitutes discrimination and so on. and there is pointed and powerful language that we are looking at and to pull out a line or two, it is first protections that belong to all, but this is the clause that allow to all, but not just to speakers whose motives the government finds worthy, and this is the idea and a little bit of the zinger from justice gorsuch on the idea that this jurisprudence is hinging around

the fact that while people find gay rights to be popular or trendy within the spirit of where a segment of the country is, and justice gorsuch is sort of attacking it a little bit making the point that sort of we have to hold our noses in a way and sometimes rule against popular sentiment. notably this is a 6-3 decision, and we have to read how aggressively they attack the rationale behind the opinion. we will just have to see,that w through it. >> and it says it envisions the united states as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish and not as the government demands, because colorado seeks to deny that promise, the judgment is reversed. what is your reaction to this,

and what fallout may well be. a lot of people worrying about things like jim crow. could somebody decide they want black folks to come in the back door, because they don't want them in the store. i mean, how far might this go? >> we have to distinguish between free speech and the creative ways that one markets and accommodation laws and laws that are designed to prevent what you spoke of and a discussion of where this leads, but i had a chance to ask this particular plaintiff after the oral arguments as to why she fileded this lawsuit. and she said, clarifying, and the risk of being sued with uncertainty as to how entering the wedding website business she might be treated. listen to what she had to say. >> my case is not only about me and my artwork, but also

protecting the lgbtq artists or graphic designer who should not be forced to create custom artwork who opposes same-sex marriage. >> so no one has asked you to create artwork for same-sex marriage, and you are talking about it a speculative notion. >> i have had requests. >> what have you done? >> i am unable to enter the industry, because the colorado law is coming after me and treating me inconsistent with the way it is treat people of faith, because i have a stand to protect my right, and the right of everyone. everyone should create artwork consistent with what they believe. so i should not have to sit around and wait to be punished to really challenge this unjust law in colorado. >> so this is speaking to the issue that on one hand that elie is raising that why this person is before the court to speak about standing in terms of someone having an actual

controversy or actual harm that is either tangible or one that can be computed in some way, and you can contrast that with the prospective harm that she was hoping to avoid in the form of a lawsuit. ultimately this case is going to examine what the parameters and constraints of free expression are and communitiies of faith are, and ideas of expression, and the prospective notion of harm, and also as a society, the government oftentimes regulates certain aspects of speech as they are under a particular analysis, whether it is a reasonable time, place and manner restriction, for example, whether it is a threatening nature, and whether your rights and mine begin, and this general philosophy, and combing through this opinion is very, very telling of what domino effect this may have. >> laura, stick with me.

elie, i am seeing a line from sotomayor's dissent, and gorsuch is still reading from the majority. today, the first time, a business is granted the constitutional right to refuse service to a protected class. i am wondering what is the difference of a wedding website and a wedding case, and this is getting to the 2018 case. >> and that is a great question. what is speech and conduct. and this an argument that was hotly debated at oral argument. if you are creating a website, are you expressing anything? justice kagan said, i have a couple of clerks that are putting together web sites, and there is nothing artistic about it, and it is falling along the lines of the conduct, and the person who provides chairs, and it is not speech, so it is not protected by the first amendment, but the court has found here, there is speech, and expressive content here, and therefore it is entitled to

first amendment protection, but it is leading to questions. how about the catering, is there an artistic expression? >> this is opening door to more and more lawsuits, right? >> yes. this case, unlike the student loan case, that is yes/no. on or off, but this further litigation. >> and this is the question of where is the line. and from gorsuch, the states may protect gay persons just as they can protect other individuals of individuals acquiring whatever products and services they choose on the same terms and conditions to other members of the publics and no doubt, innumerable goods and services that implicate the public good, ie, chairs, and at this there are no goods that are immune to the public accommodation, and it can be swept too broadly to compel speech. >> different levels of expression. >> so this wedding website

designer when she goes into business cannot say, you can't come into the store, but there are some things that maybe, i could be forced to do, but designing a website for a gay wedding is not one of them. >> that is one of the hotly contested questions here. can she turn away, let's say if a biracial couple came in or interracial couple comes in, and that is the question of the dissent, where is the line? >> if that is going to infringe on her free speech, i have to believe from the reasoning, right now, she could. >> that is the concern of the dissent here, where do we draw the line. sexual orientation is a protected class, and constitution ally protected class, and you are entitled to protections and not without limits, but the counter vailing protections of the majority is if the government is going to provide what is good and

acceptable speech, and the first amendment points out the good and acceptable speech just the same. >> and it is not just the bakery versus the website, because there is a religious section here that was not in this case, and this is about free speech, and this is about religious. >> different attacks on the same law. so both of them involved a colorado state law prohibiting discrimination against the lgbtq case. in the cake case, it was argh yug re arguing cake case, it was religious case. >> and they were kicking the can down the road. >> they copped out and kicked the can down the road in large part to today. >> and so let's go to laura, because i am told that sotomayor

is reading from the bench, and i am looking for the quote that she said in dissent in marking what this moment in history means when it comes to this decision in her dissent saying for the first time in its history, the court is granting a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class. >> you know, this is again taking a step back, and it is years since we have heard from the supreme court justices on the bench reading aloud their opinion, and in successive days the sheer number of the arguments and the contentious issues. i had an opportunity to speak to the attorney to the point of addressing the opinion, and what it might look like for those hoping to express themselves creatively and running up against this very notion of those you describe, and listen to what the attorney had to say. >> what do you say to the retort that says is, look, this is

discrimination, and you have a product, but you just don't want to sell it to me, because i am a same sex couple. >> because the product is not the same as speech. certainly public accommodations apply to transactions everyday, but when you are asking someone to use your heart, head and hand to a product, that is speech. it is not just a product. just as the lgbtq does not want to celebrate a pro abortion, or a photographer does not want to photograph a pro life rally, we should have the what and not the who that is the critical distinction. >> and in looking at the distinction, the court uses same analogies that were referenced in oral argument that she raised there, then and there, and they seem to make the connection here that it is about the money aspect of it that simply because

it is a amount of money or because it is a commercial venture that does not usurp the right of somebody to say no, and you would not have the opinion of somebody to say that the government could require an unwilling muslim movie director to create something with a zionist message or a person to celebrate a movie with evangelical zeal. and beyond at the core principle as sotomayor is saying that there is a pandora's box that is opened and there is a particular reason to overcome some of the reasonable accommodation or reasonable accommodation laws geared at you carving out to be acts of bigotry, and this is a monumental decision for those who could maybe say, hold on, i am not acting in the way that you are saying is but it is my creative expression, and a

matter of the heart and the mind, and it is the what and not the who. it is a way to be explaining behavior to avoid what the majority has called penalty of the law. >> all right. thank you, laura coates, and i know that you will stay with us, because we are expecting second decision that affects about 43 million americans, the student debt decision. but while we are continuing with this and waiting for the court, i do want to read something that gorsuch said, because it is speaking of how far this can go. he says that the parties agree that ms. smith who is the person who brought the case will gladly create web sites for gay, lezby or bisexual clients or organizations run by gay, lesbian or bisexual clients as

long as it does not violate her beliefs. so there are folks who say that gay, lesbian or bisexual folks should not exist, but she will do it, but she won't do a website for them if they are married, because it is going against her first amendment rights. >> so that is a tricky distinction here. she is going to provide the services to lgbtq people, just not the ones she objects to. and just not the services or the behaviors that she objects to, which strikes me as a bit of the hair splitting. >> i am confused. >> yes, and keeps door open to, again, to discrimination prevailing in this case or yielding to the first amendment rights, and this is the fundamental dispute of the colorado anti discrimination statute, and where does the first amendment rights begin and end. >> and now, what is speech?

right. what is speech, and that is something that the court has weighed in on other subjects as well, because campaign donations are speech. so, what in business is not speech now if a business owner is allowed to use their first 5e78d amendment rights not to do something. >> john, it is very important, because speech is not just the word that comes out of someone's mouth, but speech is acts and conduct of an individual, and in effect, endorsing as the court is saying today, some idea or concept. right. i think that the tricky balance that is striking here, and picking up on the last points that both elie and laura just made, okay, fine, we can stipulate it here that discrimination against people on the basis of their sexuality is, itself, unlawful. so, they make that point quite clearly, it is not a point of discriminating on people because of their identity, but on

account of the behavior. so when you are trying to carve up where the line is between the person's identity and the acts they engage in, that is a tricky legal one. so the question is i have no problem with gay people under the law or this organization has no problem with the gay people under law, but it is the things that gay people do, and getting married is one such thing. that is where you are going to see years of litigation of where the line is on this. this is something that we have been talking about this over the course of the last day in the context of the affirmative action decision, it is not what the supreme court does, but the open questions that they leave that dictates the future of american life. so you will see the litigation between the tension of where does this sort of the identity of the person that you can't discriminate against butt up against the actions of where the court says you can't. >> and elie, what happens with

the colorado law now with this anti-discrimination law that has been in place, and the attorney general, and i was looking that the attorney general and the way they have been talking about it last year, this state's anti-diskcrimination law and their position of the speech is not about sales, and when this case was going before the court, does this just blow a hole right through it? >> no, i don't think so. again, i will give you a lawyerly answer, and say it is going to wait until i have read the opinion closely to answer that to see what they did with the law. it is not an attack on the law on its face, but it is a question of this person's right to speak or engage in conduct, and first amendment protected conduct of how it squares with the law. it does create an opening of what the businesses can do and

not with the identities of the individuals and that question, kate, it is going to be very, very hard logically and legally to carve up. >> yeah. >> i do have a quote here from gorsuch coming across the screen getting to the issue that we are talking about right now. determining what is qualifying as expressive can raise questions, but this case is no complication of that kind. >> yeah, so there was a debate in the argument of this case about is creating a wedding website an artistic expression or a mechanical service, and the court firmly decides there is some level of speech, of content and of artistic content of a wedding website. and keep it within the scope of weddings, and it can be beyond the scope of weddings, but if

this is the expression of a wedding band, and this says if you are a wedding band in colorado, you can say, no, we don't want to perform at gay weddings, and take someone who designs invitations, if there is artistic expression involved in web sites, there is in invitations, so clearly, that is opening up the door for anybody in that service, no, we don't have to provide service to a gay wedding, but on the other end of it, the example for the person who provides tables and chairs, and that person is not going to be able to say, i object, because there is no artistic ektsprexpression in ta and chairs. >> and what about food? >> well, the gray areas.

>> with the ones that i have worked with, there is not art. and higher end ones, they would say, what i put on the plate and there is an artistic expression there, and this is interesting hypotheticals, and maybe there is not. and students will study, and bring it back to the court. >> and now, laura coates who has been with us through the different decisions over the past two day, but i first want to read from sotomayor's dissent, and it is flaming hot, if you will. by issuing this new license to discriminate in the case brought by a company that seeks to deny the full enjoyment of the services, the immediate symbolic decision is to mark gays as a stigma of second-class citizens,

and the opinion of the court is quite literally a notice that reads, quote, some services may be denied to same sex couples. when you are reading that, and you try to square that with gorsuch saying, oh, but she is gladly going to create things for gay, lesbian and bisexual clients, how do you square it? >> it is nearly impossible to reconcile those two statements from the two different justices underlying the same premise of course here. >> if you plainly put a sign that says open in front of my shop, what does that mean. does open mean it is open to everyone who is a member of the public or does it mean open unless i wanted it to be closed to you. now that is a big distinction that colorado was trying to look

at and the supreme court was grappling with. they have come out with the conclusion that as long as it is a creative or freedom of expression endeavor, then i have a choice the decide when i am open or closed, and this is running counter to long-standing precedent of this notion, and to delineate it further, we are talking about speech. the majority is going to great length to talk about different aspects of the supreme court case law that is talk about so-called unpopular speech. they mentioned skokie, illinois, and a march involving nazis is and speech that is offensive, and speech that is embraced in a variety of different contexts, and the history of the supreme court has been the say, look, it doesn't matter if you like or are offended by a particular speech, if you are open to the public for a parade route, and if you are open for a permit process, and if you have time,

place and manner restrictions on the time a concert can be held, and when the music has to stop, then you cannot be closed to views that you don't agree with. that has been the fundamental principle of the first amendment for a very long time. what this is doing is to take a alternate view and perspective and that why sotomayor is saying essentially, open except. that is novel concept at least in the post civil rights era in this country. one thing she spoke about is a six-headed hydra. when a part of the slaw struck down and then another can breathe its own fire. i asked the attorney in this matter about this case as to her correlation and relation to the wedding cake at issue in that same state of colorado which is

a different litigation journey than this one, but she spoke about that correlation. listen to what she had to say. >> i believe that you were the attorney for the colorado baker as well in the past, is that right? so some would look at this, and say, are you simply trying to use a client to not -- not in an unethical way, but an opportunity to relitigate that particular case in a new medium? >> no, in fact, laurie's case was filed before jack's case went to the supreme court, and now that she has seen the punishment imposed on him in the 10th year of litigation, and colorado is the most aggressive to impose their law and fines and re-education against like-minded speakers like laurie, and she has the right to go to court and reprosecute her, and this is what the justice

system has for her. >> and so what is impactful is including affirmative action and now this case related to free speech has been the idea of similar lawyers. you had edward bluhm with the affirmative action case with different action trying to get to the supreme court, and the different bain of trying to understand the contours of the supreme court holdings, and this is a trend where people are looking and combing through very carefully through supreme court precedent to ensure that they are able to acknowledge, understand and identify the various loopholes or open doors that the supreme court has opened, and then use them in future litigation to close them. >> elie, one thing that has changed here is since the 2020

case has changed is that you have kennedy retired, and ruth bader ginsburg has died, and the landmark same sex case was decided, and then in 2015 or 2016, and so when you are seeing how much the court has changed in this time, and where we are today, this decision, does it at all threaten when we are looking at the slippery slope of where this could lead now, and do you think that it could threatenen think that it could threaten the other case? >> these cases are very sharp and pointed, and in fact, in both of the cases, the majority goes out of the way to really take on the dissent, and law ra

a -- lawura and i were talking about how we have never seen them go back and forth and it is uncommon to have dissenting opinions read or rally read on e bench, and this is why we are waiting so long. and where it usually says i respectfully dissent, and it is not respectfully here. and not in this one. and it is a constitutional right for gay people to get married. on a practical level, there is tension, and you are a constitutional right to get married, but certain vendors can const constitutionally deny you services, but there is no countervailing first amendment speech issues ss ss is, but the

obergerfel case, and we should go after that next, but the majority said, no, no, that is not here, this is different. >> and so there are two words that are going to be introduced into the american lexicon, expressive activity. and we will be hearing about what is expressive activity going on. and there is wedding cakes, and chairs and food. and there is also -- >> who will not claim that they have an expressive service, but that is one side -- >> oh, sorry. >> and expressive activity for whom. because if you are the website maker, and you don't want to engage in expressive activity

for a jewish couple or interracial couple and one would assume, and i should not say that, but based on the opinion, could it expand to them, and could this website maker be forced to make something -- >> because they are jewish, but i am not discriminating against them because they are jewish, because -- >> because it is a kosher menu, and i can't make a wedding website because it is kosher menu. >> kosher menu is a great example, john. because i am going to do something that i don't do quite often which is to disagree with my good friend elie hoe anytany -- elie honig with the table and the chairs, but if you are the vendor who is providing chairs and the tablecloths or whatever, and saying this is an expression

of my business or some act, and it is straining logic to say that providing something that people sit on is expressive or communicative act, but it is worth trying to challenge or seeing where you go. this is going to get to central question in all of this is where do you draw the line what is plainly discriminatory per any number of provisions in the constitution, and where, you know, it is sort of cutting into where folks, entities might have some latitude to make their expressive choices, and i just think it is a very complex area to pull in a lot of areas of business. >> all right. elie, can we go with this now? okay. now, we are looking at this, and one of the two cases that are the challenges to the student loan, to biden's student loan program. two case. one brought by the republican-led states attorney

generals and two individuals -- >> no, it is. the first one is on the states. >> the first is by the states is what i am told. >> the one i am looking is individuals. >> in any cases -- i will butt out. >> wait, wait. actually, let's -- jessica schneider is going through it. and set us up before we get to decision on what is at stake here and what we will be hear when these two come out. >> at stake is $400 billion worth of student loan forgiveness which is a biden campaign promise that he enacted through a campaign promise. so there are two sets of challengers here. important to keep in mind for what jessica is about to say. two individuals who did not qualify for student debt relief saying that essentially, that is not fair. >> i am going to -- you always make the points, and we have to stop you, because we do have some more information on the

decision. we will go to jessica schneider who is listening to every word. what is the decision, one or two challenges or both? >> well, it is elie on to something there, because they did dismiss one of the cases. they dismissed the one brought by the two individual borrowers, but of course, another challenge from several states. they have upheld standing there. and they are rule on the merits striking down biden's student loan forgiveness program. what they have decided is here is that dealing with what they say at least one of the states, missouri does have standing to sue here. that is because missouri services loans and they would be negatively impacted by the student loans, and so they have standing, and also, the heroes

act which had given the secretary of education the power and emergencies to act that act, the federal law does not go far enough to encompass this very broad huge price tag of $400 billion and this is what it would cost this country to actually enact this student loan program. and so to take away here is that the states have standing to sue, and in so doing so, the biden administration does not have the authority to enact this debt forgiveness program, and so more than 40 million student loan borrowers are not going to get up to $20,000 in loans canceled. >> jessica schneider, run back in and learn more of what is being read from the bench. we go to laura coates, so the supreme court has struck down president biden's student loan forgiveness loan, and a 6-3 on the ideological lines, and we have to get more quotes from the

ruling, because missouri has standing and president cannot do this without congress. >> for those of us still paying off student loans, this is coming back to what happened in the year 2003 when the heroes act was adopted and this is essentially in the wake of the tragedy of 9/11 in preparation and anticipation for a war. it granted the department of education additional discretion to alter or amend the repayment plans that were having an effect on those who were potentially impacted both on those going to fight, and those who had student loans to still repay. now the question before the court was not whether or not the heroes act was applicable because of a national emergency, and certainly the pandemic was just that kind of emergency, albeit for a different reason, but the court here said whether congress intended for that act

to go beyond the discussion of changing repayment and debt cancellation. this is where the rub actually lied for the supreme court in oral arguments, just how far did congress expect the president to be able to act and the department of education. so what we find today from this ruling, and we are still going through it of course is that the supreme court believes they went too far. there are some narrow constraints, and there was a national emergency, but the constraints did not provide for the opportunity to have a full consolation or to the extent that this was sought after. there are also political conversations about this very debate, and often the refrain of why should the nurse pay for doctor's education, and why the choices of one person who chooses not to incur the debt having to pay societally for those who have done so. it is a hotly contested debate. it was on the campaign trail leading for president biden to even make this grand overture as he has described it in the past

in this notion. the court is not looking at the politics hopefully, but the idea, the supreme court justices, these nine, and what did congress intend to be the power invested in the department, the power of the executive branch and the limitations. today, the limitations are the cancellation cannot stand. this impacts so many people. which of course, the administration was aware of, and congress keenly aware of when it entered the most recent legislative efforts to roll this back. >> thank you so much, laura. stick with us. elie, i wanted to ask you about this, is this a case about the power of the presidency and what the president was allowed to do in the executive office versus congress and everyone else, the checks and balances issue? >> yes, it is about executive power. it is not supposed to be a question of do we like this policy and is this fair?

and another thing, this student loan forgiveness issue is over. we have been talking in the wedding case, and gray area, and interesting hypotheticals and what next. there is no what next to this. no hypotheticals. >> you have to repay it, and not forgiven. >> it is done. important the note, this is another 6-3 decision. chief justice roberts, alito, kavanaugh and barrett in the majority striking it down, and in the dissent, the liberals, kagan, jackson and sotomayor for it. >> i have a better quote. >> here we go. >> the fuller quote, if you will, the ability to cancel $40 billion student loan principal does not. the secretary can waive or modify statutory or regulatory provisions applicable to the provisions under the education

a act and not the rewrite the statue from the ground up. >> so that is the key quote, we won't just enact it out of thin air, but out of this heroes act of 2003 and it is somewhat broad, but it said that in times of emergency, we, congress, give the executive branch the power to modify to waive or cancel student loans. is that too broad now, because of covid, you can relieve student loans. and the court says that law was made for minor modifications. >> is that dollar amount part of the problem here? >> yes. there is a subjective quality here. it is the extent and not the power, but the extent. >> yes, the legal question is the legal doctrine here.

if it is a big deal, you need to say, executive branch, you can do exactly this, and that is the point that the majority says, when we have used it in the past, it is for minor modifications, to protect the veterans, and this is a sweeping $400 billion that is beyond what the executive branch can do. >> and it is affecting 40 million students paying them off which is the very young and the doctors and the lawyers with the huge loans, and they will have to start paying them back, and the covid restrictions are coming off as well. so the wheels are come off for the people who thought that maybe they would have a break here. >> yes. >> you know who has a bunch of lawyers? >> the white house. and they have a bunch of lawyers who have been anticipating this decision. over to arlette saenz of what the white house plans to do now? >> well, the white house is expressing disapproval of this decision from the supreme court which struck down a key program for president biden that made good on a campaign promise.

now, what we are also told they have been preparing behind the scenes for some time for possibility of this decision. a source within the white house told us moments ago that president biden is going to be announcing new actions to protect the student borrowers later today when he is expected to speak. we don't know exactly what these protections might entail, but it is speaking to the steps that the white house has been preparing for behind the scenes. additionally, the source says that part of the argument today is that the administration is going to try to planning to make it clear to the borrowers and the families that the republicans are responsible for denying them the relief that president biden has been trying to get them, but no question, this is a huge blow to the initiative that the administration had put forth in august and it could impact up to 40 million borrowers, and they had millions of applications processed and millions of

applications they had approved, and this is an issue that president biden had spoken fervently about, and during that 2020 primary as well as the general election, and so this is going to be certainly a political issue for president biden going forward, but in that statement from the source that we heard, from it is making clear that they are trying to point out that it is the republicans who are the ones who are denying this relief to students going forward. we will get a paper statement, and likely to hear from president biden later today as they are facing this major blow to one of the signature initiatives of his administration. >> arlette, let us know what more reaction you are getting and what is coming in on your end. and over the christine romans, because we have started show talking about what could be coming and the number and dollar figures about it, but regardless, the things changed today for million of americans. >> yeah, it would have been significant relief thinking of

44 million americans with the student loan debt. the typical student loan forgiveness would have been $10,000, and half of the borrows with $20,000 or less, and a little bit of relief for so m. but it did not do anything to address the root cause of inflation. so this would have been paying off the student debt and taxpayers pay pg it off, and this wouldn't have fixed the root cause. but it is important for people to understand that october 1st, those student loan payments resume, and this is going to happen one way or another. the pause or the time-out is done. the three-year covid time is done, and people are going to start paying on average, between $200 to $315 is the average student loan payment, and those are out of the door again, and

the interest accrues again in september. so this is a really important budgeting moment for millions of families who have been using that money for other things to pay down other debts, to pay for their housing costs, to pay for car loan their car loan, and other items and see if this is going to take out the wind of the economy, because now millions will be using that money to pay for it in the student loans instead of elsewhere in the economy. >> and now, jeff zeleny, and while this is a huge day for the legal decision, it is also a big day for politics. and certainly, this is going to be playing into the 2024 presidential election, and as we have heard these two decisions coming ow. >> and yes, every year, the term

of the supreme court will inject into the political sphere, and just as arlette was reporting, president biden continuing the fight against the student loans, and this a key part of really his support and path back to re-election, and he wants to show that he is indeed fight and trying do something about these student loans, but as christine said, it is not going to address the underlying cause of the cost of education in america. going show that he is trying to fight it. but looking at a marquette poll, 63% of americans favored some student loan relief. so this is popular across the board of independent voters and democratic voters and republican voters as well. so this is going to be injected into the campaign. president biden is slow to this and beginning term in the white

house, he was slow for some proposal for this, and he was pushed from the liberals and the progressives in the party, and bernie sanders for one, and elizabeth warren for two. so this is critical for building a coalition for the re-election. as for the colorado katecase, t is why elections have consequences, and why it matters. the supreme court is a central focus of the race. looking at the decisions coming out, it is a mixed bag, even though it is a conservative court. and looking at the voting rights and last week how the court stopped well short of what progressives and liberals were fearing they would do, but as we are analyzing this, it is a fascinating supreme court term

with chief justice roberts at the helm. and certainly in politic, this is front and center for the presidential campaign for the next year and a half. >> and jeff, what is the stronger political message this message of president biden on the campaign trail, and would it have been able to out the a promise made and promise kept to voters in the terms of student loan relief or out thing the court on the way to help you. >> sometimes blocking something motivates voters, but without question, the president and the white house would have preferred to have said, a promise made, and a promise kept, but they knew it was likely not going to happen, because the heroes act in the years after 9/11, it was simply not about this, and simply not for this.

they would have preferred a different ruling, but really nobody really was. >> and so from a purely political standpoint and what they have been campaigning on, it is a clean sweep of the affirmative action rulings, and colorado case and student loans. manu raja is on capitol hill, and no, he is not, because nobody is working there. >> no, he never leaves there. >> manu raja is alone on capitol hill today working the phones and what are you hearing? >> well, the republicans are absolutely thrill for the last two days seeing the ruling after ruling going in their direction, and they have fought against that biden student loan program. the house republicans tried to advance the legislation in debt proposal to block the student loan proposal and they had to

drop it to allow it to happen in the supreme court, and they got the ruling they want, and number of the senate republicans signed on to an amicus brief calling for the end of the biden student loan program, but they are recognizing the politics of it as well, and the fact that there are many students out there benefiting from this who could essentially take out their frustration, and some voter backlash at the polls given how potent of an issue student debt is particularly among the younger voters, and as we are heading into the 2024 election cycle. we are hearing from the republicans who signal they are going to push for legislation that they believe would lower the cost of education, and help to deal with the student debt. there are a number of proposals out there, and one area that the republicans are trying to message on the aftermath of the ruling. and democrats are furious. chuck schumer is attacking supreme court itself calling it

a maga-right activist wing of the supreme court with that colorado ruling of gay rights, and he called it a giant step backwards of human rights and protection, from the democratic majority leader. and some are pushing biden to go further on the student loan forgiveness. we expect to hear from schumer with a reaction. and like yesterday, we expect to see the republicans celebrate, and democrats blasting them. we expect today much of the same. >> and now, going to the student loan debt center, and you yourself, have over $40,000 in debt of student loan, and you are saying that the price of

education has gotten so high that it has injured students' abilities to do well, and what is your reaction to this knocking down of the student loan debt being knocked down? >> i am a descendent of immigrants who believe that education is the pathway to the american dream, and with the student loan holding back generations of families, and we are seeing the american dream slip out of our hand, but i want to point out it is not to cost of college that is increasing, but inflation and the continued impacts of the pandemic have made everything from rent to food much more expensive, and that why this relief was so needed, and i know that many people like me are really

worried about concerned about their financial wellness and stability moving forward. >> what do you do now that the payments are coming due, and who do you blame here for this? is this something that you put on the white house as kate suggested not getting something done they promised or on the supreme court for blocking it? >> today's decision is squarely on the supreme court and in the hands of the unelected people, but we have to globalize a movement around student debt relief and cancellation, and the president has other tools in the tool kit and other legal authorities to provide broad base student debt cancellation to millions of americans and like many other important issues in america, one supreme court decision is not going to fight progress, and our fight

continues. >> you have been working on this for years with your organization. what do you want to hear from president biden today? we have heard from our colleagues working at the white house that he, they have plans, and they have been preparing, and they are going to announce next steps, but beyond convincing congress which could be a step, it seems difficult to see what more the president could do, and what do you want to hear from him today? >> i applaud the biden administration to find other ways to assist student borrowers, but part of the proposal today is a fight to continue for pursuing student debt cancellation. he can still make it happen and deliver on the promise, and this supreme court case does not have to be the end of the road. so i want to hear president biden lay out the clear path

forward and the legal authorities that he believes are in the tool kit. i want to hear him pursue that with a certain level of urgency that really meets this moment. we are talking about 40 million americans that are crushed by debt in a few months. so, swift urgent action that includes broad-based debt cancellation, and i hope that the president comes out with that today. >> can i quickly ask you about the political ramifications as well. do you think that it going to fire people up, as you mentioned more than 40 million americans who are going to be having to pay their loans back now after dealing with the difficult situation with inflation and the economy. do you think that is going to fire them up to go out to the polls to basically say, no, we need something to change here.

it look like we have lost the connection there. and so, thank you, cody. over to christine romans and talk about 40 million people paying the loans back sooner rather than later. >> he was talking about the tool kit and the tools in the president's tool kit, and there are things that the white house have done, and they have gone after the for-profit colleges that have really loaded up the military veterans and others example with worthless degrees, and they have done other thing like income-based repayment, and if you have working in a low-income field, you only have to pay 10% of the income to that debt, and working with the department of education to make this mountain of debt more affordable. it is the largest consumer debt behind mortgage debt for most

american, and it is an investment, and a debt that is worth it. half of the americans have 20,000 or less worth of debt, and few percentage points they are paying on the bills and for most people it is worth it, but for the outliers who have $100,000 or more in student loan debt, it is crushing on october 1st. that i have had three years of not having to pay that debt, and they have been using it for other things in the household budget, and very rude awakening for millions of american families. >> and christine, from top republicans, john thune putting out a statement saying that i am seeing the way he is talking about it is very similar to the other republican reaction coming from capitol hill is that the plan that biden had put forward was unserious scheme to force 87% of the americans who do not have student loan debt to bear the cost of 13% of americans who do so, and anybody frustrated by