Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Christian Business Owners Allowed by Supreme Court to Refuse to Design Websites for Marriages of Same Sex; Dissent: Court's Decision Permits Companies to Decline to Serve People Who Belong to a Protected Class; LGBTQ Protections Limited by the Supreme Court; Sotomayor Cautions LGBTQ Decision May Pave the Way for Additional Forms of Prejudice. Aired 10:30-11a ET

Aired June 30, 2023 - 10:30   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[10:30:00]

LAURA COATES, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: And so, what were also 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 the Supreme Court has opened and then use them in future litigation to close them.

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: Elie, one thing that is obviously apparent here as well is that a lot has changed in the, I think it's five years since the two -- the 2018 was decided, the makeup of the court has completely changed, right? You've got Kennedy, retired, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, died. The court is also very different from back when the landmark same sex case was decided, and Obergefell in, what, 2015 or something like --

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: '16 or '15, yes, something.

BOLDUAN: -- 2015 or '16. And so, when you see how much the court has changed in this time and where we are today, this decision, does it at all threaten when we look at, like, the slippery slope of where this could lead now? Do you think it could threaten Obergefell?

HONIG: So, a couple of interesting points there. First of all, this is a different court. This is now the second in two days starkly six to three court. Conservatives on the six, three liberals sticking together on their side. And the dissents in both of these cases are very sharp, very pointed. And in fact, in both of these cases, the majority goes out of its way to really take on the dissents.

I mean, Laura and I were talking yesterday about how I've never seen a back and forth like this between a dissent and a majority opinion. And there are other indicators of just how intense this footage (ph) -- first of all, it's uncommon to have dissenting opinions orally read aloud from the bench, we're seeing that now. I think that's the reason we're waiting so long for the next case. And also, it's, sort of, old Supreme Court decision that when you end a dissent you say, I respectfully dissent that we're respectfully as not in this opinion, just as I dissent. It was not in yesterday's affirmative action. Now, on the Obergefell opinion, which is the case that said there is a constitutional right for gay people to get married. On a practical level, there is some tension because you're saying, OK, you have a constitutional right to get married, but also certain vendors can constitutionally deny you services on their free speech basis. Legally, it's a little bit different because there's -- there was no countervailing first amendment --

BOLDUAN: Right. OK.

HONIG: -- issues in Obergefell. Nobody was saying it violates my free speech rights for gay people to have the right to get married. But there are real questions about whether Obergefell, the gay rights, to get married case will survive. And last year, when Dobbs came down, overturning Roe --

SARA SIDNER, CNN ANCHOR: Right.

HONIG: -- there was an opinion, I believe, by Justice Thomas --

BOLDUAN: Oh, the Thomas -- that concurring one.

HONIG: -- paralegal --

BOLDUAN: Yes.

HONIG: -- say, we should go after that next. But the majority opinion said, no, no, no. That's different. We're not going to upend Obergefell.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: So, Elliot Williams, there are two words now, that I think Justice Gorsuch introduced into the American legal lexicon that will matter going forward in court, that's expressive activity. We're going to hear a lot, I think, in court rooms about what is expressive activity going on. And to a certain extent, that's the discussion we've been having here about, you know, wedding cakes, websites, chairs, food. There's also a discussion about --

BOLDUAN: Sotomayor gets to it.

BERMAN: Yes. Who will not claim -- Sotomayor says, that they don't have an expressive service. But that's one side of it.

BOLDUAN: Oh, sorry.

BERMAN: The other side of it is, expressive activity for whom now? Because if you are that website maker, and you don't want to engage in expressive activity for a Jewish couple or interracial couple, one would assume -- I don't -- actually, I should say that, based on the opinion and so far, as you've read it now, does it expand to them? Can this wedding website maker be forced to make a Jewish website?

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: That's an -- well, the question is, because they're Jewish or because of something they're doing because they're Jewish. So, you know, I'm not discriminating against them because they're Jewish, but I'm discriminating against them because they -- I don't know how to bar mitzvah. That's probably still legal too. But you still --

BERMAN: Because it's kosher. It's a kosher menu.

WILLIAMS: But you --

BERMAN: I can't make a kosher wedding website with a kosher menu.

WILLIAMS: I was -- I was withholding any sort of -- but right. Kosher menu is a great example, right, John. That's a great example. And you know, I'm going to do something that I don't do quite often, which is disagree with my good friend Elie Honig as to, you know, something like -- and I know it was just an example, the tables and chairs question, which I know we were just playing with hypotheticals here.

But I see, at least, a reason to bring a lawsuit if you are the vendor who is providing tables or chairs or tablecloths or whatever else that might be, and saying that, this is an expression of my business or some act. Now look, it, sort of, strains logic to say that providing something that people sit on is actually an artistic or expressive or communicative act, but it's at least worth trying to challenge, and at least, sort of, seeing where you go. And this gets to the central question in all of this which is, where do you draw the line between is plainly discriminatory per any number of provisions in the constitution.

[10:35:00]

And where, you know, it, sort of, cuts into where folks -- entities might have some latitude to make their expressive choices. And I just think it's a very complex area, it's going to pull in a lot of areas of business.

BOLDUAN: All right. Elie, stick with me. Can we -- are we -- can we go with this now, guys? Yes. OK. So, I'm looking at this now and we have one of the two cases that were the challenges to the student loan, to the -- to Biden's student loan program. Two cases, one brought by the Republican-led states attorneys general, and one brought by two individuals. This the two individuals that were -- that --

SIDNER: Yes.

BOLDUAN: Yes.

HONIG: No, it is.

BERMAN: This is the -- the first one, I think, is on states. The first one was by the states, is what I am told.

HONIG: The one I'm looking at right now is the individuals.

BOLDUAN: Yes.

BERMAN: OK. In any case, there are two -- I'll butt out.

HONIG: So -- OK. So, maybe I can -- BOLDUAN: Wait, wait, wait. OK. Let's -- actually, let's -- Jessica

Schneider is going through this right now. So, we're going to get to here in a second. Set us up before we get to what the decision is on what is at stake here and what we will be hearing when these two come out.

HONIG: Yes. So, at stake is $400 billion worth of student loan forgiveness is, of course, was a Biden campaign promise that he then enacted through an executive order. Challengers -- and Kate, as you said, there's two different sets of challengers here.

SIDNER: Right.

HONIG: Really important to keep that in mind, I think for what Jessica is about to say. There are two individuals who did not qualify for student debt relief saying, essentially, that's not fair.

SIDNER: I am going to -- you always make the best points.

BOLDUAN: We're going to get to this.

SIDNER: Can we stop you for just a second --

HONIG: Yes.

SIDNER: -- because we now do have some more information on the decision. We're going to go to Jessica Schneider who is listening to every word. Let us know what you hear. What was the decision? And did it -- was it just on one of the two challenges or both so far?

JESSICA SCHNEIDER, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Elie was on to something there, because they did, in fact, dismiss one of the cases. They dismissed the one that was brought by those two individual borrowers. But of course, there was another challenge from several states. And they have upheld standing there. And they have ruled on the merits, striking down Biden's student loan forgiveness program.

So, what they've decided is here is dealing, they say, that at least one of the states, Missouri, does have standing to sue here. And that's because Missouri talked about the agency within the state that actually services federal loans and how they would be negatively impacted if these loans were wiped out. So, the Supreme Court has agreed that the state does have standing. Because of that, they've also ruled that this HEROES Act that had given the secretary of education the power and emergencies to act that that act -- the federal law does not go far enough to encompass this very broad huge price tag of $400 billion, that's what it would cost this country to actually enact this student loan program.

So, to take away here is that the states have standing to sue. And in so doing so, this court has ruled that the Biden administration does not have the authority to enact this debt forgiveness program. So, more than 40 million student loan borrowers will not get up to $20,000 in loans canceled.

BERMAN: All right. Jessica Schneider, we're going to let your run back in and learn more of what is being read from the bench. Let's go to Laura Coates, our chief legal analyst. The Supreme Court has struck down President Biden's student loan forgiveness program, a six-three ruling again on ideological lines. And from what we know, we have to get more quotes from the ruling. Basically, they ruled Missouri has standing and that the president cannot do this without Congress.

COATES: Well, for those of us who are still paying off student loans, maybe you might remember MOHELA as the Missouri connection here as to why they have standing. But this all comes back to what happened in the year 2003, I believe, when the HEROES Act was adopted. This essentially was in the wake of the tragedy of 9/11, in preparation and anticipation for a war.

And it granted the Department of Education additional discretion to alter or amend the repayment plans that were having an effect on those who potentially would be impacted both by going to fight, and those who also 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, certainly the pandemic was just that kind of emergency, albeit for very different reasons. The court issue here was whether Congress intended for that act to go beyond merely the discussion about changing repayment and debt cancellation.

This is where the rub actually lay it for -- laid 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. And so, what we find today from this ruling, and we're still going through it, of course, is that the Supreme Court believes that they went too far. That there are some narrow constraints, there was a national emergency, but the constraints did not provide for the opportunity to have a full cancellation or to the extent that this was sought after.

[10:40:00]

There are also political conversations about this very debate. You've heard often the refrain of, why should the nurse pay for the doctor's education? Why the choices of one person who chooses not to incur the debt having to pay societally for those who have done so. This is a hotly contested debate. It was on the campaign trail leading to President Biden to even make this grand overture, as he has described it in the past in this notion.

So, the court, of course, looking at the politics, hopefully, but instead the idea of these Supreme Court justices, these nine, what did Congress intend to be the power vested in the department, the power in the executive branch, and what were the limitations? We see 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 its most recent litigation effort -- I mean, legislation efforts to try to roll this back.

SIDNER: Thank you so much, Laura. Stick with us.

Elie, I do want to ask you about this. This is -- was this really 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, checks and balances issue?

HONIG: Yes, this is about executive power. It's not supposed to be a decision about do we like this policy? Is it good? Is it fair? Now, a couple of things, this student loan forgiveness program is done. It's over. There's no black and white We've been talking in the wedding case. Yesterday in the affirmative action case, there's a lot of gray area.

SIDNER: Right.

HONIG: Interesting hypotheticals. What next? There is no what next with this. There's no hypotheticals.

SIDNER: You have to repay your student loan. You were not going to have it forgiven --

HONIG: Right.

SIDNER: -- by --

HONIG: The forgiveness program is done. Important to note, this is another six to three decision. The six conservatives, Chief Justice Roberts, along with Justices Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett in the majority striking it down. And in the dissent, again, the three liberals, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson. So, we're seeing that yet again.

BERMAN: I want to read you some of this.

HONIG: Yes.

BOLDUAN: I have a better quote.

BERMAN: OK. Go.

SIDNER: Here we go.

BOLDUAN: I just -- I -- the fuller quote, if you will, John. The secretary asserts that the HEROES Act grants them the authority to cancel $430 billion of student loan principal. It does not. We hold today that the act allows the secretary to waive or modify existing statutory or regulatory provisions applicable to financial assistance programs under the Education Act, not to rewrite the statute from the ground up.

HONIG: That's the key quote. So, the Biden administration did not just say, we're going to invent this out of thin air. We're just going to cancel debt. They pointed to this law, this HEROES Act from 2003, which is somewhat broad. It basically was passed after 9/11, and it says that in times of national emergency, the executive branch -- we, Congress, give you the executive branch the power to modify or waive certain student loans.

And the question was, is that too broad, or do you need a separate law saying, OK, because of COVID, now you can relieve student loans? And what the court says here is, that law was meant for minor modifications. So, they -- there's a quote in the majority opinion --

BOLDUAN: So, they -- is the dollar amount part of the problem here?

HONIG: Yes, it's relevant.

BERMAN: There is a subjective quality to this --

HONIG: There is.

BERMAN: -- which -- is the extent, that's the issue. It's not the power, it's the extent.

HONIG: Exactly. Because the legal term for this is the major question doctrine. If this is a big deal, if this is a major question then you need a specific law from the Congress saying, hey, executive branch, you can do exactly this. And that's the point that the majority in this.

BOLDUAN: That's why you have to define big deal then, right?

HONIG: And they say, when we've used this in the past, it's been for very minor modifications, trying to protect veterans. This is a sweeping $400 billion program that goes beyond what the executive branch can do.

BERMAN: So --

SIDNER: 43 million students who are still paying this off, which can be the very young who've just gotten out of school or those who -- doctors, lawyers who have these huge loans, they will have to start paying them back.

HONIG: Yes.

SIDNER: And the COVID restrictions are also coming off as well.

HONIG: Exactly.

SIDNER: So, the wheels are coming off for people who thought that maybe they'd have a break here.

HONIG: Exactly.

BERMAN: You know who has a bunch of lawyers? Any White House. And this White House has got a bunch of lawyers who have been anticipating this decision. So, let's go to Arlette Saenz there to find out. Arlette, what the White House plans to do now?

ARLETTE SAENZ, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, the White House is already expressing their 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're also told they've been preparing behind the scenes for quite some time for the possibility of this decision. And a source within the White House told us just moments ago that President Biden will be announcing new actions to try to protect student borrowers a little bit later today when he is expected to speak.

Now, we don't know exactly what these protections might entail, but it does speak to some of the steps that the White House had been preparing for behind the scenes.

[10:45:00]

Additionally, this source said that part of their argument today will be that the administration is planning to try to, "Make crystal clear to borrowers and their families that Republicans are responsible for denying them the relief that President Biden has been fighting to get them."

But there is no question. This is a huge blow to an initiative that the White House had really put forth back in August. They had estimated it could impact up to 40 million borrowers. And they had already had millions of applications that they had processed, millions of applications that they had approved. And this is an issue that President Biden spoke fervently about, and other Democratic candidates as well, during that 2023 -- 2020 primary as well as the general election.

So, this will certainly be a political issue for President Biden going forward. But in that statement from that source, we heard from, it also makes clear that they're trying to point out that they believe it's Republicans who are the ones who are denying this relief to students going forward. So, we will see what more the White House has to say. I'm sure we'll get a paper statement, likely to hear from President Biden himself a little bit later today as well as they are facing this major blow to one of the signature initiatives of his administration.

BOLDUAN: Arlette, let us know what more reaction you're getting and what's coming in on your end. We'll get back to you.

Let's get over to Christine Romans. Christine, we started this show talking about what could be coming and the number and dollar figures about it. But regardless, things changed today for millions of Americans.

CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN BUSINESS CHIEF CORRESPONDENT AND CNN ANCHOR, EARLY START: Yes. This would have been significant relief when you think of 44 million Americans with the student loan debt. And, you know, the typical student loan forgiveness was going to be $10,000, but half of borrowers have $20,000 or less, so that would have been a real big relief for so many people.

But from the very beginning, there was also the discussion that it didn't do anything to address the root cause here, which is inflation in the cost of higher education, right? So, this would have been paying off a bunch of student debt, taxpayers paying off all the student debt but not addressing the core problems. So, that's some place where the White House and higher education can really try to fix the core -- the root of that problem. When you look at this as well, I mean, it's really important for people to understand that October 1st, those student loan payments resume. And that was going to happen one way or the another. The pause, the timeout is done. The three-year COVID timeout is done, and people are going to start to pay on average between about $200 and -- to $315 is the average student loan payment, and those are out of the door again. Interests begins accruing 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 their car loan, to spend in a broader economy. So, we'll be watching very closely to see if this is something that maybe takes a little wind out of consumer spending because you're going to have millions of people who are now going to be using their money to pay for their student loan payments instead of using it elsewhere in the economy.

SIDNER: All right. Thank you so much.

We're going to go to Jeff Zeleny now. While, this is a huge day for the legal decision, it's also a big day for politics, because certainly this will play into the 2024 presidential election. You already hear Biden making statements. He's going to try to fix this in some way. Jeff Zeleny, what are you hearing as -- after these two decisions have come down?

JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF U.S. NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: There is no doubt that every end of the Supreme Court term injects things into the political sphere, and this absolutely has done that with this 2024 presidential campaign. And what we're going to see today, as Arlette was just reporting, President Biden continuing his fight against student loans. This is a key part of, really, his support and path back to re-election. He wants to show that he is indeed fighting and trying to do something about these student loans.

But as Christine was also saying, this does not address the underlying cause of the high cost of education in America. But the president is going to continue to show that he is trying to fight this. But interestingly, when you look at polling, a Marquette poll out just last month show that 63 percent of Americans actually favored some type of student loan relief. So, this is popular across the board, independent voters, Democratic voters, and a splice of Republican voters as well. So, look for this to be certainly injected into the campaign.

President Biden was slow to this. We remember from the beginning of his term in the White House, he was very slow to doing some type of a proposal on this. He was pushed along the way from liberals and progressives in his party. Bernie Sanders one, Elizabeth Warren was another. So, this is something that he has been slow to get at but something the White House believes is critical to building a coalition for his re-election.

As for the Colorado case, this is yet one more example of why elections have consequences, as we always say, why these matters. So, the Supreme Court, once again, will be a central focus of this race. [10:50:00]

But I think if you look at all of the decisions coming in as we near the end of this term, it really is a mixed bag in terms of, yes, this is a deeply conservative court. But in the coming days and weeks, as we study what this court has done, also on voting rights. We're thinking back to last week, how the court stopped well short of what some progressives and liberals feared that they would do.

So, as we analyze all of this, this is a very fascinating Supreme Court term with Chief Justice John Roberts at the helm of many of these six-three decisions here. And certainly, politics, this will be front and center into the presidential campaign for the next year and a half. Guys.

BOLDUAN: And then becomes the question, Jeff, what is the stronger message when it comes to the political message that this administration -- that President Biden on the campaign trail could be presenting? Would it have been being able to tout a promise made and a promise kept to voters in terms of student debt loan relief, or is it --

ZELENY: Sure.

BOLDUAN: -- despite our best efforts and what we tried, Republicans and the Supreme Court stood in our way to help you. That, I think, will be interesting to see.

ZELENY: It absolutely is. I mean, it's -- certainly, sometimes blocking something motivates voters. But I think, without question, the president and the White House would have preferred to say, a promise made, a promise kept. But they knew that this was likely not going to happen. The HEROES Act, of course, as we remember it, in the years after 9/11, was simply not about this. Simply not for this. So, if there's any question that they would have preferred a different ruling, but they were not expecting a different ruling as no one really was.

BERMAN: All right. Jeff Zeleny for us.

For Republicans, the last two days of the Supreme Court term, from a purely political standpoint and what many of them have been campaigning on, this has been a clean sweep --

BOLDUAN: Yes.

BERMAN: -- between the affirmative action rulings, the Colorado case, and here on student loans. So, let's go to Manu Raju, who, I think, is on Capitol Hill. Although, I can't imagine there are many -- no, he is not, because there's no one working there. Why would you be there? You're on Capitol Hill --

BOLDUAN: He's the only one who's ever there.

BERMAN: All right.

BOLDUAN: He's always there. He never leaves.

BERMAN: Manu Raju alone on Capitol Hill today, working the phones, getting reaction. What are you hearing from Republicans, Manu?

MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Republicans, obviously, are thrilled over the last two days seeing ruling after ruling, going in their direction. And they fought against the Biden's student loan program. Remember, the House Republicans tried to advance legislation included in their debt limit proposal to try to block the student loan plan, ultimately, they had to drop that student loan provision and allow it to happen in the Supreme Court. And they got the ruling that they want. And a number of the Senate Republicans signed on to an Amicus brief calling for the end of the Biden student loan forgiveness program.

But they recognized the politics of this as well. And that the fact that there are a number of students out there, many who are benefiting from this who could, essentially, take out their frustration. There could be some voter backlash at the polls given how potent of an issue student debt is, particularly among younger voters, and as we head into the 2024 election cycle.

We're already hearing from Senate Republicans who are signaling that they plan to move forward to try to push for legislation that they believe would lower the cost of education, help deal with students in dealing with debt. There are number of proposals that out there, but that is one area in which Republicans are trying to message in the aftermath of today's ruling.

Democrats, on the other hand, are furious. One angry statement Chuck Schumer in the aftermath of the Colorado ruling, calling -- attacking the Supreme Court itself. Calling this a MAGA right activist wing of the Supreme Court, and that Colorado ruling involving gay rights, he called it a giant step backwards for human rights and equal protection. As from the Senate Majority leader, Democratic Schumer also has been one of the ones pushing Biden to go even further on the issue of student loan forgiveness.

We have now heard of an official statement from Schumer, we expect to hear so soon. But this is, like we saw yesterday, in the aftermath of the affirmative action case, Republicans celebrating the results of these rulings. Democrats outrage and attacking this court. They have seen one ruling after another go towards the Republicans. Today, no different. Guys.

SIDNER: All right. Thank you so much, Manu Raju.

We are going to be joined now by Cody Hounanian, the Executive Director of the Student Debt Crisis Center. You, yourself, I understand, have $30,000 in outstanding debt. And one of the big issues that I'm seeing people react to is that the price of education has gotten so high that it has really injured their ability to do when in this world after school. What is your reaction to the Supreme Court knocking down President Biden's debt -- student loan forgiveness program? CODY HOUNANIAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, STUDENT DEBT CRISIS CENTER: Well, thank you for having me. I wish I was here with good news. But I'm absolutely devastated the way that many other -- millions of people across the country are. You are right, I am a student loan borrow. The descendent of refugees and immigrants who really believe in education as the pathway to the American dream.

[10:55:00]

And with the burden of student loan debt really holding back generations of families, we're seeing that American dream slip out of our hands. But I also want to point out, it's not just the cost of college that's increased, inflation and the continued impacts of the pandemic have made everything from rent to food much more expensive. And that is why this relief was so needed. And I know that many people, like me, are really worried and concerned about their financial wellness and stability moving forward.

BERMAN: What are you going to do? What are you going to do now that these payments are coming due? And who do you blame here for this? Is this something that you put on the White House, for as Kate was suggesting, not getting something done they promised, or on the Supreme Court for blocking it?

HOUNANIAN: Well, today's decision is, you know, squarely in the hands of the Supreme Court justices. And it's, you know, unfortunate that such a transformative policy was in the hands of unelected decision- makers in our government. But I don't think this is the end of the road. What we're going to do next is to continue to mobilize a movement around student debt relief and student debt cancellation.

And we know the president has other tools in his tool kit. Other legal authorities where he can provide broad-based student debt cancellation to millions of Americans. So, like many other important issues in America, one Supreme Court decision isn't going to stop progress. So, our fight continues.

BERMAN: And you've been working on this for years, I mean, with your organization. What do you want to hear from President Biden today? He's -- we've heard from our colleagues working at the White House that he -- they have plans, they've been preparing, and they are going to announce, you know, next steps. But beyond convincing Congress, which is -- could be a step, it seems difficult to see what more the president could do. What do you want to hear from him today?

HOUNANIAN: Well, you know, I already applaud the Biden administration for pursuing all sorts of reforms to the student loan system that could help borrowers, and I'm looking forward to hearing what that plan is today. But it's absolutely critical that a core component of his proposal today includes a fight to continue pursuing student debt cancellation. He can still make this happen and deliver on his promise. And the Supreme Court case does not have to be the end of the road.

So, I want to hear President Biden lay out a clear path forward. I want him to explain the legal authorities that he believes are still in his tool kit. And I want to hear him pursue that with a certain level of urgency that really meets this moment. We're talking about 40 million Americans that are going to be crushed by debt in just a few months. So, we need swift, urgent action that includes broad-based debt cancellation, and I hope the president comes out with that today.

SIDNER: Can I just quickly ask you about the political ramifications as well. Do you think that this is going to fire people up? There is -- 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 will fire them up to go out to the polls to basically say, no, we need something to change here?

BOLDUAN: It looks like --

SIDNER: It looks like --

BOLDUAN: Yes.

SIDNER: It looks like we've lost the connection there. So, say -- thank you to Cody Hounanian.

Let's go now to Christine Romans. We were just talking about the 43 plus million people who are going to be paying these loans back sooner rather than later.

ROMANS: And he was talking about the tool -- the kit -- the tools in the president's tool kit. And there are things that the White House has done. They have gone after these for-profit colleges who have really loaded up military veterans, for example, and others with all kinds of student loan debt and worthless degrees. So, they've gone and they've actually expunged some of that student loan debt.

They've also done things like income-based repayments. So that if somebody is working in a low-paid field and has a whole bunch of student loan debt, they don't have to pay more than 10 percent of their monthly income toward that debt payment. So, there are things like that they've tried to work with the Department of Education to make this mountain of debt for some people more affordable.

It's the largest consumer debt behind mortgage debt in this country right now. And for most American, it is an investment, it is debt that is worth it. Half of Americans have $20,000 or less of student loan debt, and it's only a few percentage points of their monthly income they're paying on those bills.

So, for most people, it's worth it. But for the outliers, the 3 million households who have $100,000 or more in student loan debt, that will be crushing on October 1st. They've had three years of not having to pay that debt. They have been using that money for other things in their household budget, and that will be a very rude awakening for about 3 million families.

[11:00:00]