challenge is the extent to which whatever benefits a person had by virtue of the high grades or scores, somehow, it justified their admission over somebody with lower scores is going to be hard to prove given the fact that diversity is about a lot more than race. >> michael, just talk a little bit more broadly in this moment as we are going to remind everyone where we are in this huge moment that is just now come to the entire country of coming from the supreme court in this decision, and we heard from the last guest who says that this is not ending affirmative action in terms of the race consideration in admissions. he says it is shifting focus of affirmative action in terms of admissions. do you see it that way or is this ending affirmative action without ending it? >> i think that this is ending affirmative action without

excluding all possibility that race might enter into some decision-making. so i think that one concept to keep in mind that might help explain what is going on, and these are the legal terms that we use sometime has to do with the difference of form and substance. form has something to do with how it formally appear, and what is the official appearance, and today, the court has said formally speaking, race may not enter into decision-making, but a decision-making has to do with the internal aspects, and while the court is excluding formal race as a basis, but it is not excluding a substantive practice that has the substantive effect of giving some consideration to some things which are effectively proxies for race

like socioeconomic status. >> thank you so much for jumping on to give us some extensive knowledge of the supreme court. thank you. we have laura coates, can you give us a little bit of the background of why the justices decided what they have, and does this really end affirmative action because of what justice roberts said, or does this end of what has been happening here in 2023? >> well, there is a precedent to use race in a list of factors in an application, but here the supreme court looked at this under the 14th amendment and equal protection and a notion that we will not look at race in a way that undermines or harms people in society, and its roots are in the post-slavery mode of

the nation and carried over to this day. the court said that any time race is a criteria or factor, it is noted as a suspect classification, and there is a certain formula that is applied when dealing with race cases, and it is called strict scrutiny. it is called strict scrutiny of different factors bh sfactors. what is the compelling factor of the state or the government to use race as part of the consideration, and is it narrowly tailored for the results that we are looking at to achieve a particular end. that is the framework to look at this case. they have viewed in the majority holding here that race, one, it is a suspect classification, and that the compelling interests that were provided by the universities on this issue about it leveraging or aiding in the student body diversity about the ability to benefit people post university in college, and diversity as a greater societal

goal and framework, they felt that the actual ends were not going to justify the means here. they believe in the majority opinion that race cannot be a factor that is consistent with the 14th amendment that says that we ought not look at race as a factor in deciding somebody's ability to be viewed meritoriously or otherwise. the reason they are criticized by the dissent in this particular opinion is that the dissenters do not believe that race is not very much a part of the fabric of the society and that it cannot be looked at in the way that on one hand it is viewed in another context, but solely outside of the purview of education. in fact, there is a huge disconnect of the two black supreme court justices. and of course, ketanji brown jackson and clarence thomas. thomas goes ten pages going at the rationale of ketanji brown

jackson, because he believes the focus on race is too much, and focuses on that of asian american ps. and we are aware of the difficult history of asian americans in this country, and from the japanese internment camps, and how can we say that puts them at more of a disadvantage than the other, and is there a difference of the two? but politics and personal experience does come into play. if you read the dissenting, sorry, the concurring opinion from justice thomas, he speaks about his own personal experience of feeling as though, he has written in the autobiography and beyond of the burden of affirmative action and views it as paternalism and not

racial sensitivity, and i don't know if we have a full screen of it, but a political notion, and think about this in discussions of the critical race theory, and on page 45 for those following along, and he writes today's 17-year-old after all did not live through the jim crow era and enact any action to impress or enslave the victims of the past, and whatever the skin color, today's youth are not responsible for instituting the sins of the past. of course, he is talking about at the equally similarly situated applies, one white and one minority group, and what might give one the advantage over another. it is speaking to me just how impactful the political conversations have been in perhaps infusing the

conversations on the bench. >> laura coates, thank you so much. interesting to note that justice thomas is a supreme court justice. although he felt bad about feeling like he was admitted because of his race. >> i wanted to reset so that people if they are just joining us know what is going on. there is a generationally significant movement from the supreme court. they have struck down affirmative action at the universities. they say that you cannot use race as a factor in admissions effectively, and these are cases from harvard and north carolina, and rulings where six of the justices ruled together. the majority was six each, and i wanted to read a couple of quotes before the reporter who was in the room. >> and chief roberts wrote the majority. >> and the equal protection clause, that both programs

lacked objectable race, and to employ race in a negative manner to involve racial stereotyping and lack meaningful end point, and nothing should dissuade an applicant's discussion of their race being it inspiration or discrimination, and they should be treated through their experiences as an individual and not on the basis of race. >> this is also going against 40 years of precedent. let's get to joan biscupic and she was in the room, and then the concurring and then the dissent all read from the bench. tell us what it is like to be there inside of the room, joan. >> to tell you about the weight of the moment, and it is four years since the justices read their opinions out loud like this for all of us to see and

have a dissent from the bench because of covid. they have not been on display like this. and to john's point about this generational shift. the weight of history was so evident in the room as the justices began to read. chief justice john roberts sitting in the middle of the nine with the solicitor general and all of the lawyers sitting in front of him, and his wife jane slips in before he starts to read. you could have heard a pin drop, and he announces right off of the bat that they are rolling back all affirmative action. i have to say there was a little bit of defiance in his voice, even though, kate, sara, john, this is something that john roberts has been working on for himself many, many years, back to his time as a young ronald reagan administration lawyer. he does not believe in any kind of race conscious remedies. he went on about how race conscious admissions results in racial balancing, which is against the constitution's equal

protection guarantee. what he did was to spun the words out of the 2003 gruder decision that you have referenced to say that there was always supposed to be a deadline on this, and it was always supposed to end. so he took the bits of history and steered it right towards the time is now, and no regrets. we are doing this. and then he only took about 10, 15 minutes to read his, but then clarence thomas who was with the majority, the court's only black male justice at this point starts to read his. now, one thing that i would say is watching these other justices listening, ketanji brown jackson, the newest african-american justice looked out stone-faced the entire time. and some justices are looking at the colleagues reading, but she looked out not betraying anything on her face, but we know how she felt because of

what then unfolds. justice thomas, and he really immediately goes to the fact that these programs could have discriminated against asian americans, and he likened, and he harkened back to slavery and all of the wrongs of history, the jim crow era, and he put these programs in that category. he talked about how much they betrayed the equal protection guarantee of the 14th amendment. he spoke, he and then following him, justice sotomayor spoke so long, they had to take breaks to drink water, but he spoke for 20 minutes talking about these programs were always bad, always stigmatizing and always hurt both sides. affirmative action in his mind was a zero-sum gain, and inevitably he believed that white students were harmed and black and hispanic students, and in these cases, asian american students. and when he ended, sotomayor

spoke. she is the first latina on the court, and the most senior of the liberal justices which is why she began speaking and read this oral dissent, and she spoke about the profound mistake that the majority was making here. she said it would close the doors of opportunity to people across the nation for schools, for military and it would have reverberations. she talked about the true promise of the equal protection clause and how it has always had the component that was race-conscious, and that the guarantee of equal protection necessarily meant that people's race had to be taken into consideration. i should say that is the fundamental tension at the core of this case. is taking race into account a form of racial discrimination as the chief justice believes. he has said the way to stop race

discrimination is to stop race. and that is the core, but justice sotomayor said that she is the only justice who has been wearing a mask, because of covid, and so she removes mask and she starts speaking, and going on for about 25 minutes about how what a wrong turn the majority has taken. towards end, she refers to justice jackson and kagan and she says justice jackson has filed a separate dissent and she and kagan had given consent, but at the very end she said, "we shall overcome." and it was a mournful robust dissent that had just a lot of unhappiness at its core, and as i said pretty mournful, but she

said, we shall overcome despite what the majority has done here, and there is a way for progress to continue, but the bulk of her dissent was essentially saying that her colleagues had staunched progress. it was really something. as i said the weight of history was so evident in the room. no one in the spectator said anything. they couldn't say anything, and you couldn't see emotion on the face of anyone including, as i said the chief justice's wife jane roberts is there, and everybody was stone faced, and when it was all over at about 10 to 11:00, chief justice said tomorrow would be the last day, and they would issue their final rulings, but nothing is going to eclipse this, and it won't eclipse it tomorrow and for many, many years. >> and arianne -- joan, sorry, you just explicitly explained what happened in court, and how

emotional it was, and even t though the people were stone-faced you explained what it felt like to be there and one thing that is interesting in being there in the long decision, and it is more than 200 pages. justice roberts talked about the military academy saying that it does not apply to that, and justice jackson responded with this really strong response to that saying that the court has come to rest on the bottom line conclusion that racial diversity is only preserving insofar as it might be prepared to have success in the bunker and not the boardroom. these are sharp words coming from the dissenters as we have heard in some cases before, but it shows you just how important this is. and how emotional this issue is across the board, does it is n

not? >> oh, completely, sara. even though they were trying to hold it in check, you could tell by the tension nonetheless by justice jackson's face as she looked out. because to not even glance towards her colleagues to betray anything took a lot of energy, and you could see the tension. she had played such a prominent role in the oral arguments in the cases in actually in the single case, because she was out of the harvard one because she had to recuse herself, because she had been formally on the board of overseers there, but in the university of north carolina one, she had been so active talking about what is the original meaning of the equal protection clause? what was it designed to do? so in this moment when the court has reversed decade upon decade of history, and this morning when i talk about this cases,

these do implicate the "brown v. board of education" of 1954, and the dissent which captures judge jackson's dissent talks about what the promise was in "brown v. board" that the schools were integrated and we were walking away from the segregation, and in this, justice sotomayor said there would be segregation, and the sharp line of to bunker and the boardroom was matched by several others at least out loud. i have not had time of course to read the opinion, but this the courtroom, so many zingers going back and forth, and i have to say about the chief justice, we have seen him try to couch some of his strongest opinions with language that might mallify some people, and what some universities can and cannot do, and he is saying that what some universities can and cannot do directly, you cannot do them

indirectly either. he warned that he did not want universities and colleges to set up programs that might work in the shadows to somehow take into consideration applicants' racial backgrounds. it was one of the most robust, strongest statements ever, and as i said, it has been building for him personally for almost as long as bache has existed, sara, john, kate. >> i want to build on that last point, joan. what colleges can and cannot do n now. and we go back to jessica schneider of what this mean, because every supreme court decision matters, and it has significance, but this is going to change so much for so many people. >> it does, john. what i will tell you is that no doubt, colleges and universities are already combing through carefully this opinion to determine exactly how they need

to restructure their admissions process, because this opinion does leave a little bit of question, because it is overall prohibiting the colleges and universities from relying on race and the admissions process, but what we saw in the opinion is that the majority here insists that they are not specifically overruling 40 years of precedent to allow schools to use race in a factor in admissions, but at the same time, they are barring the applicants from what is checking a box indicating race, and they are stopping the schools from looking specifically at the race of an applicant, and as a result here, this does mark a major change, four decades in the making, of how colleges and universities can conduct their admissions practices moving forward. so the majority in this opinion, and what they are saying here is that you cannot essentially check a box, but they are not going prohibit the applicants from discussing race whether it is in essays or otherwise how it

affects your lives and we won't ban that. but we did see in the dissent that it is like putting lipstick on the pig that you are essentially banning race. and this is two cases involving harvard and unc, and the use of race in those schools violated the equal protection clause. when it comes to reasoning in this opinion, it all amounted to the test of strict scrutiny and whether the policies at these schools were sort of narrowly tailored enough. and the court saying they weren't. and the court said, and you read ate moment ago, john, but it is going through what the court was considering in making decision. it said, because these policy admissions at harvard and unc lack sufficiently focused and measurable objectives warranting use of race, they have unavoid bli employed race in a negative matter involving racial

stereotyping, and lack meaningful end points. so they are going point by point, and what the admissions policies at unc and harvard did wrong. we see the biting dissents from the three liberal justices where they say it is going to be a devastating impact. and joan talk about the liberal justices of the two of them having a lived experiences of how race affected their lives and that race needs to be considered, and considered to provide opportunity, and to allow for diversity, and, john, kate, sara, this is what the universities will be struggling with going forward and how the restructure the admissions programs, and also, struggling with how to sufficiently diversify their student bodies when their student applicants can no longer check a box telling them what race they are. >> standby. i want to go to jeff zeleny now, and you have been getting more reaction coming in, and what are you picking up?

>> certainly of all of the reaction coming in, some interesting reaction from former president barack obama and first lady michelle obama, and both of whom benefitted from the affirmative action programs and they have talked about it extensively over the years. and very unusual in the wake of the supreme court decision. looking at the passages from each of the statements reflect the view. former president barack obama says this, like any policy, affirmative action was not perfect, but it allowed generations of students like michelle and me to prove that we belonged. now, it is up to all of us to give young people the opportunities they deserve and help students everywhere benefit from new perspectives. of course, from president obama who graduated from harvard law school where he wrote passionately about the need for affirmative programs? the 1990s. now, michelle obama who attended princeton and harvard law

school, and she had a lengthy statement, and passionate statement about the need for affirmative action and how it helped her, but this is one passage from her. today my heart breaks for any young person out there who is wondering what their future holds and what kind of chances will be open to them. while i know the strength and grit that lies inside of the kids who have had to sweat a little bit more to climb the same ladders, i hope and pray that the rest of us are willing to sweat a little, too. so certainly interesting reactions there, but pi am thinking back to a time on the campaign trail in 2007 when then senator obama was asked about affirmative action and if their daughters malia and sasha should benefitt from the programs and at the time, senator obama, the junior senator from illinois who would become president and not clear at this time, he was not sure they should benefit from it, because they had many

advantages, and michelle robinson at the time, and barack obama did not have. so, as generations have passed here, the perspectives have changed. and interesting pew study here constructive to the public opinion. looking at the numbers here. a bare majority of 50% of americans said they believe that affirmative action programs have run the course. they do not approve of the affirmative actions, and only 16% approve and about 75% of republicans, and 3/4 of republicans believe that they disapprove of the affirmative action program, and 54% of the democrats, and actually 29% of democratic-leaning voters support the programs, and so certainly, view ed with a

predictable lenses here. and those comments of former president obama and michelle obama are calling on others in society to help students like them along the way. >> jeff zeleny, thank you. as you are speaking, jeff, there is an update to president biden's schedule, and the white house is putting this out, that president biden is going to be delivering remarks on affirmative action, and those coming from the president of the united states in just about one hour at 12:30 eastern. just reminding everybody where we are. the u.s. supreme court has made a huge decision that will affect many, many, many americans and universities and colleges. they can no longer use race as a factor in deciding whether or not students get admitted. that is the bottom line. there are lots of caveats that we have seen from justice roberts, because that is the bottom line. i want to go to steve vladic and

laura coates. i want to start with you, steve, because you been watching every single thing coming down on this, and you write that it does not end all race-based affirmative action. i am curious though, because we have just heard from someone in the court who said that roberts made it very clear that roberts said that you could not go around and get students in by another way, and is this to say that you could not use it for scholarships or other things? >> yeah, and i think that what is really tricky here, and this is where there is a lot of confusion in the headlines coming out from other media outlets, race as a policy, race-based preference as a policy, that is dead. i mean, that is clearly fored

by by -- forbidden except in the military academies as chief roberts puts in a footnote, but if for example, a student writes about how race shaped their experience in a diversity statement or race application, it is not beyond the ability of the university to consider. so what this is opening door to is a very, very different use of race in college admissions where schools can't say, we are going to have preferences. schools can't say that race is a plus-factor, and schools can't say that racial diversity is one of our goals burk where the applicants can still choose to talk about themselves, and guys, in those contexts where it is permissible. i teach at the university of texas, a public school in a red state where the legislature has actually gone to some lengths to actually restrict the ability of schools to consider these kinds of diversity statements, but in the places where they are

viable, there is a sliver left. so what is important is that it allows court to say it is not overturning decades of affirmative action while today effectively neuters it, and makes the policies all but impossible to pursue in the vast majorities of colleges and universities in the country. >> bringing back in laura coates. you had some time to go through the opinion now. read the legal reasoning behind it. what jumps out to you? >> it is all going down to strict scrutiny. when race is a particular factor to the aspect of the law, the court courts will look at it in strict scrutiny, and of course, under the 14th amendment, society chose that it is not a factor or

undermine or disadvantage somebody, and looking ate in the lenses of strict scrutiny, this court is saying that you have not justified the use of race by anything very compelling to us. you have not provided day that this is still warranted or necessary. of courses a lot of this in the admissions process is subjective. the criteria of what you think a student should be a part of the community based on something else is based on the factors with the data surrounding test score, and you have a whole host of subjective criteria to wbe used, and this court is saying it can be used, but it is not the criteria. and the application mechanism of it in terms of how a school knows when they are crossing line in considering and listening to a student's discussion of race as part of an identity as opposed to using it as somehow an advantage. what we are seeing here is an evolution. there are no quotas. it cannot be a plus-factor.

and this decision is whether race can be a part of the holistic consideration of one's application which is inherently subjective. but at the end of the day, one part that was really interesting to me in particular is justice thomas' concurring opinion where he talked about hbcus and identifying the hbcus as an example of not racially diverse entity that still has benefits to the student body outside of the college and university setting. he used that to juxtapose why diversity might be a goal societally, but it is not compelling enough to say that you have to use race exclusively as a factor or plus factor or quota or holistic notion, and many will quibble with that opinion, and many aspects as well, but overall, what we are seeing here is the value of precedent, and the shaping of precedent and the nuances of it over periods of time that are

far shorter than they used to be. and remember "roe v. wade" was a nearly 50-year precedent and many attacks of it, and many in the form of litigation, and now you affirmative action decided in 2016 as steve pointed out, and the contour is again reshaped. you can expect to have some form of litigation still pending, because it is not black and white, and forgive the pun, but it is not black and white how one can objectively assess subjective application process. >> laura, stick with us because i want to bring in kenny shue, president of color united a member of the board of studens for color united who oppose

color admissions who say they proportionately discriminate against asian americans. you been combing through this, and the part of the dissent that you are looking at, and clearly approve of what the majority has decided here on 6-3, but ketanji brown jackson says let them have kate, and color blindness by fiat, and color blindness by law does not make it so in life. no one benefits from ignorance, and this is what she is seeing in the majority opinion. >> vi always maintained that if colleges and universities wanted diversity, eliminate legacy admissions, and harvard refuses to do that. they will not eliminate legacy

admission, but they will alienate black students. so if you want to do that, you will also focus on the k-12 american education, because that is where the black americans are suffering. at the college level, you cannot change what is going on in their lives, but you can at the k-12 level. that what i would encourage people to do. >> what do you say to the millions of people who point to affirmative action, race-based admissions as a reason for their success in life. >> ki point to race-based admissions as to the reason that asian americans are discriminated against. if you are asian americans, you have to point 273 points higher than a black person at harvard. i understand that your lives are

improved by going to the ivy league university, but it should be made available to everybody and not the interests of one. >> what opportunity dos ies do e as the diversity and in some people, it is a four-letter word, but some do you a student body for people with different places and different perspectives, and what do you see that interest to be? >> i think that different places and different perspectives are important, but race is a horrible proxy for those. as you know, 45% of harvard's black students are black immigrants, and 73% of them come from upper middle-class or higher backgrounds. that point, a black american admitted to harvard is more likely to have more in common with a white upper class american than a truly poor

disadvantaged american. >> so taking harvard in account, 15% african-american, and 27% asian american, and 12% hispanic, and 2% native american. so do you worry about what this is going to do to population now as the schools are struggling to try and have a diverse student bo body? >> i do not understand why you think they are struggling, because i consideration asian americans are diverse. >> they are struggling, but uc berkeley has said they are

struggling to create a diverse student bother. this is not something in the ether, but it is happen, and the students have said the same, and my question is what do you think that the universities and the colleges need to do, and going forward, and what you think about the fact that the military is not included in this. justice roberts pointed out in the footnote, that it does not include the military, and do you think it should? >> no, i don't think that the military should be including race. they should. in fact, the military actually provides the model of how to include people. the military does not lower the bar for black american, and you have to pass the same test, but they will provide training if you are disadvanced to get to that system. so you should be, prioritizing training people to get to the bar, and not to lower the bar. >> kenny xu, thank you for

joining us and your perspective on this. el elie, you have been with us listen toing the r-- listening o the reaction and reading through, and you are looking at precedent overturned and as john well put it, generational decision. >> couple ofcedents are made tot not necessarily for forever. and this is the second time that the supreme court has overturned a long-standing decision. last year, dobbs decision, and this one. and when does this happen? it is a result of the elections have consequences and supreme court nominations have consequences, and this a little different, because the supreme court had 20 years ago put a time clock of sorts in the majority opinion then, and they said, we will keep the affirmative action in place, but it is not meant to last forever, and they put the estimate of 25 years, and here we are 20 years later. the other thing that is

important for people to know is that there are going to be more lawsuits around and the supreme court has a habit, and not a bad habit, but here is a big new rule that changes everything, but we won't give you exact details of how it works. so there is going to be lawsuits of can in fact, colleges consider race if it is mentioned in the essays. it is not because the court wants to make it difficult for us, but it does not write out instruction manuals, but the court can only address actual cases and controversies. >> but now, can kids sue to say they are not able to get in, because this is misapplied. >> well, from the guest that we just had on was an interest group who came in, and did the research and established legal standing and brought a lawsuit, and so, yeah, we will see more

lawsuits. >> with us is the president of howard university, wayne frank, and thank you for being with us, and this is a decision and generations in the making that will have implications for generations to come. you view? >> and most importantly, it is a unfortunate decision, and as justice jackson said, it is also what should have been in the opinion is historically black colleges and universities are carrying undue burden. we represent 3% of the higher ed institution, but we are representing 25% of the degrees of black americans. howard university has produced more black physicians is than any other single institution, though by not allowing race to be considered in admissions

elsewhere, you can put an even more undue burden on hbcus to carry that undue burden. >> and sir, how may this affect historically black universities, because it is supposed to be for all university, and can you not consider race even though the name of the institution was specifically put there because black folks had such a hard time getting into other universities? >> yes. to take that one step further, historically black colleges and universities are in the law because of an amendment of the higher education act in the 1960s. so we were created through that system specifically for special funding. i think that these are the types of things that when you are listening to certain people in congress, these are types of

things that they may want to go overturn, and therefore the funding may be in jeopardy. another thing that is interesting if you are looking at the howard university medical school application system, it speaks to whether you are coming from an underrepresented or minority background and how it has affected you, and similar to what the chief justice alluded to what you can use. and what i have a problem with is does someone come to challenge that? does a student who does not get into the medical school challenge that? we have fifth most attended medical school. we only admitted 126 out of the over 5,000 people who applied. we do use that to give disadvantaged students an opportunity, but i think that can be challenged whether or not we do that, and that can be problematic for production of black doctors in america.

>> that is the question we have been asking for the past hour and 40 minutes then since this decision came down which is what is an admissions office to do now? what are the challenges that you see presenting? >> yeah, it is going to be very complicated because obviously, we are all kind of trying to avoid lawsuits, and so trying to have a very sterile process is going to be almost impossible in trying to create one is far more difficult today given this ruling. so i think that we are all going to have to look at those very carefully, and as we pointed out earlier on the show, the questions that people have been asking if they don't get in, and how we supply that data and supply and curate that data and the subjectivity gets into the discussion can be very, very difficult. so it is going to be a road that is going to require a lot more resources. i think that for the resources

that doesn't have many resources, we could be blindsided by lawsuits about this. >> president wayne fredrick of howard university, thank you so much. and the supreme court has struck down affirmative action, and effectively ending affirmative action in college admission, and there are nuances on this, and much more to come on this, and we are getting legal reaction, and political reaction and educational reaction, and as i said, almost no impact to this, and our special coverage continues right after this. they collect hundreds of data points like hrv and rem sleep, so you know all you need for recovery. and you are? i'm anan investor...in invesco qqq, a fund that gives me access to... nanasdaq 100 innovations like... wearable training optimization tech. uh, how long are you...

i'm done. i'm okay. [music playing] subject 1: cancer is a long journey. it's overwhelming, but you just have to put your mind it and fight. subject 2: it doesn'feel good because you can't play outside with other children. subject 3: as a parent, it is your job to protect your family. but here is something that i cannot do. i cannot fix this. i don't know if my daughter is going to be able to walk. i don't know if she's going to make it till tomorrow. [music playing] interviewer: you can join the battle to save lives by supporting st. jude children's research hospital. families never receive a bill from st. jude for treatment, travel, housing, or food so they can focus on helping their child live. subject 4: childhood cancer, there's no escaping it.

but st. jude is doing the work, continually researching towards cures, giving more than just my child a chance at life. interviewer: please, call or go online right now and become a st. jude partner in hope for only $19 a month. subject 5: those donations really matter because we're not going to give up. and when you see other people not giving up on your child, it makes all the difference in the world. interviewer: when you call or go online with your credit or debit card right now, we'll send you this st. jude t-shirt. you can wear to show your support to help st. jude save the lives of these children. subject 6: st. jude is hope. even today after losing a child, it's still about the hope of tomorrow, because. childhood cancer has to end. interviewer: please, call or go online right now.

[music playing] (dr. aaron king) if you have diabetes, getting on dexcom is the single most important thing you can do. it eliminates painful finger sticks, helps lower a1c, and it's covered by medicare. before using the dexcom g7, i was really frustrated. all of that finger pricking and my a1c was still stuck. my diabetes was out of control. (female announcer) dexcom g7 sends your glucose numbers to your phone or dexcom receiver without painful finger sticks. the arrow shows the direction your glucose is heading-- up, down, or steady-- and because dexcom g7 is the most accurate cgm, you can make better decisions about food, medication, and activity in the moment.

after using the dexcom g7, my a1c has never been lower. i lead line dancing three times a week, and i'm just living a great life now. (donna) it's so easy to use. dexcom g7 has given me confidence and control, everything i need is right there on my phone. (female announcer) dexcom is the number one recommended cgm brand. call now to get started on dexcom g7. ♪ (upbeat music) ♪ ( ♪ ) woah. ( ♪ ) ( ♪ ) ( ♪ ) ( ♪ ) constant contact delivers the marketing tools your small business needs to keep up, excel, and grow. constant contact. helping the small stand tall.

central," i'm john berman with sara sidner and kate bolduan. we have major news this morning, the supreme court has gutted affirmative action as we know it in college admissions meaning that they can no longer take race into account for college admissions. >> this is brought by a conservative group called students for fair admissions. one case brought against harvard university and another against the university of north carolina. in the unc case, split was 6-3,

and in harvard it was 6-2, and justice jackson recused because of her affiliation with the school. >> it says that the affirmative action violates 14th amendment. and we should state that in a broad sense, universities can still look at race, but that would only be in the sense of how they may have impacted an applicant's life, like for example writing something about it in an essay, but the applicants will not directly check a box denoting their race for the university to consider. >> to be fair, this is an area where there is still a little bit of the ambiguity and nuance which is perhaps going to have to be litigated in the future. we are covering this story from every angle. we have reporters, analysts, experts all standing by. first though, let's go to someone who was in the room for this moment in history. our supreme court lead analyst,

joan biskupic and you have seen history made again today, and the reasoning of the decision, and why chief justice roberts says in the decision that affirmative action as we know it is over. >> yes, john, i can just state that the history of the room today, and now, the consti constitutional 14th amendment does not guarantee who should get a coveted seat on campus, and the dissenters said that he is misreading the guarantee there, but he is the one who got the six votes for the majority, and his principle that he has been advocating for more than 30 years himselfing as a government

i want to mention something about how this case was billionth. you just had someone on from students for fair admissions. this is a group that was created specifically to try to take down racial affirmative action by a man who originally had used white students a as plaintiffs. edward bloom, a conservative act activist, has been a real case maker here. and what he did was he advertised for asian americans who might have felt that they were denied a spot because of programs that might have favored black and hispanic students. none of those actually testified publicly, but some depositions were taken. and i mentioned this because it was a major deal to the justices in the majority. when clarence thomas read parts from his bench today, he began with talking about how this has hurt asian-americans. i have to say the strategy of

trying to pit one minority group against another minority group had salients with this supreme court in a way that using white students in 2003 case and in a 2012 and 2016 case did not. again, brought by the same man, edward bloom, who had tried with other students. so i think it shows just how the strategy that was em proied here and the court was readier for it than had it had ever been in its history. and i think the contisequences e going to be felt not just by traditional beneficiaries of racial affirmative action, blacks and hispanics, but also plenty of asian americans. asian americans were not eunite in their sentiment about this case. in fact, several asian american ed advocacy groups had submitte briefs to the supreme court trying to reject the position

that students for fair admissions took. so very complicated racial cross currents here that will be playing out in the future. but ultimately, probably mean a less diverse student body going forward. >> i do want want to quickly mention what one of those groups has said. they said asian americans are often being used as a face and challenge affirmative action. we refused to be used as a wedge to use fsh racial justice and equality. you see some of the reaction there that they feel like they are being used a as a pawn in this game to create this issue. but the court has ruled. they have ruled decisively 6-3. there are six justices that believe this should be the law of the land. i want to get to laura coates now, as we're going through this. while this is the law of the land mnow, while affirmative action can no longer be used,

the disseptember is as fiery as you could get it. can you explain to us what you're seeing here as far as the case? it's very strong from sotomayor particularly and justice jackson. >> it's using the decent that's going to focus on what the majority holding will be or any concurring opinion. here you saw it from justice thomas. he was factoring in the opinion and analysis and rational of justice jackson as one aspect of more than ten pages of his own concurrent cans. so clearly, this was a very controversial discussion happening behind the scenes. we cannot overstate that. having said that, what the premise has been is that they do not believe that we are in a position as a society to pretend to be color blind or that race is not going to be a part of a consideration of one's own lived

experience or how that is conveyed in an application process. so this notion, you believe they are saying in it terms of the analogies to one head in the hand or lipstick on a pig or any other colorful terms used to describe their disdain for the majority ruling has been rooted in the principle they do not believe the 14th amendment, equal protection doctrine ought to be used in a way that undermines the ability to correct and course correct the history of ineffquitable practis in our soviet. education but one aspect of it. but what you're seeing here really play out particularly on the conversation around precedent that joan talked about and the idea of not forum shopping, that is obviously frowned upon when trying to find a judge that might be favorable, but looking and combing through the various decisions as recently as 2016 about what are the justices looking for, what

are the holes that were pointed out in the analysis, are there ways we can counter this point by having a perfect plaintiff in action. you're seeing this here. >> laura coates, thank you so much for that. >> you want to bring in a constitutional attorney, president of the center for justice and author of the super majority, how the supreme court divided america. some of the reaction we're getting in, we're just seeing a lengthy statement being put out by the leadership of harvard. obviously, one of the case was brought against harvard. let me read this. we'll certainly comply with the court's decision. we write today to rea affirm the principle that deep entrants, learning and research depend upon a community of in backgrounds and lived experiences. that principle is as true and important today as it was yesterday. but what are the options left? to harvard and other universities now?

>> they are now going to have to parse this decision, which said you cannot look at race. but that you could maybe look at the essays talking about the impact of race on people's lives. but you better not do that. it's a feast for the lawyers at the universities. it's an example of how the supreme court in its actions can up end the lives of millions of people. this affects all schools across the country. and what has changed? the facts haven't changed. the country hasn't changed except its grown more sdiverse. what's changed is who is on the court. you now have six very conservative justices on big cases like this moving in lock step. that has turned out to matter more than the doctrine or the cases that are brought. that way it's kind of significantly political decision. i think it's going to be super charged on both sides in the political debates going forward.

>> happen to have in my inbox a statement from harvard here on this. it's very long. they say, we will certainly comply with the court's decision. they go on to say, we affirm that because the teaching, learning, research and creativity that bring progress and change, diversity and difference are essential to academic excellence. to prepare leaders, harvard must admit those who have lived human experience. to part of what makes us who we are could ever be irrelevant. harvard must be a place of opportunities, whose doors remain open to those who have long been closed, a place where many will have the chance to live the dreams their participants and grandparents could not have dreamed. so that's the response from harvard. they will comply certainly, but then they go on to say how important diversity is still to them, leaving the sense they are going to try to work to find a way to do it.

>> look, this just shows the challenge facing our society. the legacy of centuries of racial discrimination is real and still with us. this over the past half a century was one of the ways we as a society tried to up end and undo that legacy of discrimination, especially against black people. this was not something the supreme court had previously ordered people to do. this was something universities and others wanted to do. now this supreme court has said, you can't. it really poses a challenge for how we are going to take seriously the continued legacy of racism and the passing on of racial inequality from generation to generation when the court has said you have to do it while pretending we're in a color blind society. >> you want to quickly ask elie honig while we have the time. because there are all these caveats that you heard, could someone start suing because you as a university said we're going

to give more scholarships that are pointed at the black community. how far does this go? >> someone could sue and will sue. there's a lot we still don't know. those are great examples. college administrators are in a difficult position. the statement from heaarvard is similar to what we're going to see from many universities. of course, we will comply with what the supreme court said. we remain committed to this goal. how we're going to get there, we're going to have lawsuits going back to the supreme court for years while they work this out. >> thank you for sticking with us through all of this. thank you all so much for joining us on what has been a very momentous day coming from the supreme court and more decisions tomorrow. this is "cnn news central." "inside politics" is next. today on "inside politics," the supreme court rewrites a significant section of american