>> not a joke. >> be sure to watch "state of the union" on sunday. two republican candidates for president, former new jersey governor chris christie, former texas congressman will hurd, police democratic congresswoman alexandria ocasio-cortez, this sunday at 9:00 a.m. right here on cnn. thank you so much for joining "inside politics." "cnn news central" starts right now. two major decisions from the supreme court. first the court striking down the biden student loan forgiveness program affecting millions of americans. a decision that could resonate on the 2024 campaign trail. and limiting rights. the court rules in favor of a

christian graphic designer and against a law protecting members of the lgbtq community. potentially opens the door to more cases including those dealing with same-sex marriage. plus, is there a plot to assassinate under way? ukraine says the kremlin is planning to kill the leader of the wagner mercenary army. it's one reason why yevgeny prigozhin may be in hiding as the aftermath of his mutiny plays out. we are following these major developing stories and many more coming in to cnn news center. two more landmark supreme court rulings dropped today. one addressing the intersection of gay rights, religious liberty, and free speech. the other affecting the bank accounts of millions of americans. that was the 6-3 ruling blocking president biden's student loan forgiveness program. the other also a 6-3

conservative majority. the court limiting lgbtq protections, ruling that a wedding website designer who is christian can refuse to make sites for same-sex couples based on free speech rights. let's go to cnn's supreme court reporter and chief legal analyst laura coates. let's start on the student loan debt question. walk us through what the court decided today. >> the supreme court blocked the student loan forgiveness program. it was meant to provide relief to millions of borrowers up to $20,000. it was a campaign promise from biden. he wanted to give sort of breathing room after covid to sort of stave off delinquencies and debts. but it was immediately challenged, and basically the states challenging this said, look, president biden does not have this kind of authority. if you're going to act in a way

that is going to erase billions of dollars of debt, you've got to do it through congress, and the majority today agreed that congress had to act. here is what chief justice john roberts said. he said, "the secretary asserts that the heroes act grants him the authority to cancel $430 billion of student loan principal. it does not." he said the question here is not whether something should be done, it is who should the authority to do it. a real blow to biden. and justice elena kagan, as she did last term, she basically accused the majority here of once again ignoring congress, ignoring the will of congress. here's what she said in a pretty fierce dissent. she said, "the court acts as though it is an arbiter of political and policy disputes rather than of cases and controversies. the majority said they were skeptical of the so-called administrative state of these

agencies acting beyond their authority today in this case." >> laura, this has big implications for questions of authority, rests on a major questions doctrine. we could see an impact on things like medicare. >> think about major questions, what they really mean is. by the way, this is not found in the constitution. this is really a judicially constructed notion of a way to get before the court and answer to questions that otherwise would not have been addressed by the supreme court of the united states as it involves something of extraordinary, vital importance in our society. our economics, our policy in some way. that opens the door for a whole heck of a lot of cases to come in under that. take a step back on what this is about. the heroes act came after 9/11 as a way to expand the ability of the department of education to try to change or alter the repayment options and plans of a student who might be going to be deployed at some point in time. this is not about whether that heroes act exists or whether it ought to. in fact, congress codified it

permanently a few years ago. there was a national emergency in covid-19, different from obviously what happened in 9/11, but the question before the court was do you have the authority to then cancel -- because congress with a clear -- were they clear on the issues, they gave you everything you needed to say this agency truly has this power. and that's why medicaid and other instances come up because the question is has congress spoken clearly enough such that we don't have to try to infer or intimate is it clear enough to know. that's what you had the authority to do. >> there's another case decided today that critics say could have enormous implications by setting precedent. what about this ruling on free speech and lgbtq protections? >> right. totally different case here. the supreme court ruling in favor of a graphic website designer. she wanted to expand her business into marriages. but she did not want to create web sites for same-sex couples. she said that that goes against her religious beliefs.

once again we had a 6-3 court here ruling in her favor. under the first amendment, neil gorsuch basically said, you know, colorado and its public accommodations law, it can't force someone to create a product with a message that goes against her religious beliefs. here's what he said -- "the first amendment envisions the united states' rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands." so you can imagine, again, you have the liberals in dissent. justice sonia sotomayor who actually read this dissent from the bench for a long time. she really wanted to point out the implications. she said today the court for the first time in history grants a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class. she called it a sad day, and she

expressed concern that this decision, which had to do with this website designer, could spread to other areas such as people who have racial objections. and that was key. she expressed it today. she expressed it to -- at oral arguments. and all along this website designer, she had always argued free speech. she said that the government couldn't force her to make these websites, sell them when they had a message for same-sex marriage that violated her religious beliefs. >> laura, you've spoken to both the website designer and her attorney. they argue that this is not about discrimination but rather about the government compelling their speech. >> yeah. this is a really complex matter in the sense of, number one, the standing issues. many thought this would be an issue because this particular designer had not yet actually made a website. so there are questions surrounding whether this was a ripe case for the court to even look at. she wanted a clarifying order of sorts to say, look, if i enter

into this particular line of business, will i have the penalty of the law coming down on me. normally that's not how it operates in the court in terms of that sort of prospective harm. it's one the court entertained nonetheless. think of this as a very basic way of saying if you have a sign your front door of a business and it says open, open to the public, i'm not talking about the hours you're keeping but open to the public, the question is does that mean you have the right to exclude people for whatever reason that you'd otherwise have to provide services for that are generally open to the public. is it open to the public except you and this person and this person? is it open except this person and that person or this religion or otherwise? that's the parameters of what this conversation is. it's going to come down to -- and they already said -- what is the type of expression, what is the art, so to speak. is it me compelling you to simply provide a benign sort of noncreative expression or compelling you to use your artistry against your own beliefs? and they used a whole host of

examples. as you know, about the slippery slopes of how this would mean. it became a battle of sorts of those slippery slopes. but pandora's box may just have been opened. >> it could lead to further litigation down the road, and hopefully both of you will come back to discuss that future litigation with us. thank you so much. jim? this is a big court decision with big impact. let's get reaction from the national director of youth in college at the -- the naacp. wisdom, thanks for taking time this afternoon. >> thanks so much for having me, jim. >> first, your reaction when you heard how the justices decided here. >> you know, jim, it's a sad week for america. throughout this week, the supreme court has shown that they are not in touch with the american people because they're failing to deliver on economic freedom. let's be clear, this court doesn't reflect the opinions of america. america wants to see student debt relief. this represents an extremist minority who's determined to bring the country back to a time

where we could not attend the same schools, eat at the same restaurants, or drink from the same water fountains as white peers. it's important in this time to understand that we know that student debt relief is legal. president biden has legal authority and can use alternative pathways to provide relief for the 40 million student loan borrowers. >> okay. tell me about those alternative pathways because that was the white house reaction to this, saying that the president is looking at those alternative pathways. what are they, and are they viable? >> the president must use the higher education act of 1965 to ensure that borrowers see relief. you know, the higher education act was designed to strategically to make sure that higher education was accessible and that any barriers impeding access can be removed. student debt being a major barrier for young people of color, particularly black b borr borrowers, needs to be removed so folks have the opportunity to enter into the economic system. but even in our conversations with the white house about why

student debt cancelation was needed, it's about reducing the racial wealth gap. the administration is committed to diversity, equity, and inclusion, they must use every tool in their toolkit. every legal authority to ensure that we see relief happen. >> what is your response to the argument that student loan relief gives folks a break who, although it's a burden, should be able to pay back their student loans? >> you know, i think that is absence of understanding the inequalities that have happened in america to black people. black folks are starting from a weaker economic base. when they're going to college, they're told they need to go to places and spaces and receive degrees to get those good-paying jobs. when they graduate college, they still face discrimination in the workplace when it comes to hiring practices. you know, when we recognize some of the most educated people in america today are black women, they have a disproportionate amount of student debt that

shows that it is expensive to be an educated black woman in america. and then when we talk about the interest that occurs on this debt, you know, black folks are holding this a lot longer than our white peers. >> so to understand that better, according to the brookings institution, four years after graduation the average black college graduate owes some $52,000 -- more than $52,000 compared to under $30,000 for the average white college graduate. why is that? and what can be done now to address it? >> you know, that happens because we have to take out more loans to be in college. oftentimes young black people are entering these spaces having to work multiple jobs, having to send money home, having to sustain themselves while they're in these places and spaces while they're working toward achieving those jobs they desire. oftentimes we think about what happens when black people graduate from college, they have to continue to work in that work force, figure out ways to pay off the debt as well as support their family. oftentimes we see with our white peers they get the support from

the family necessary to start buying homes, starting businesses, and enter into the economy. we recognize the disproportionate impacts that happen when folks have to take out student debt. we recognize that this is a difficult situation for black america. and so what we are proposing and ensuring the president does is if he's truly committed to closing the racial wealth gap, that he will use ever legal authority to ensure that borrowers receive relief. we cannot return back to repayment without relief. >> wisdom cole of the naacp, thanks so much for joining us this afternoon. let's get the perspective now from the other side, the winning side in this case. jessica thompson is an attorney with the pacific legal foundation which submitted an a ameek as brief -- amicus brief that opposed the student debt cancelation program. jessica, i want to talk to you about something that justice kagan said in her dissent. she said when covid hit, two

secretaries serving two different presidents decided to use their heroes act authority, the 2003 law in question here, the first suspended loan repayments and interest accrual for all federally held student loans. she's speaking, of course, of secretary betsy do voss who served in the trump administration. how do you draw the distinction between what devos did and what the department of education did here under president biden? >>, why and thank you for -- yes, and thank you for having me. the distinction i would draw between secretary devos temporarily waiving loan repayments and the accrual of interest on those loans and what the secretary did here in a student loan cancelation is that a cancelation is a far more extreme measure. in fact, chief justice roberts mentioned in his opinion that the secretary's plan has modified the cited provisions only in the same sense that the french revolution modified the

status of the french nobility. and that is, it has abolished them and supplemented them with a new regime entirely. and so instead of putting things on pause as the student pause plan did, secretary cardona's plan absolutely zeroed out or would have zeroed out many students' loan balances and created a cancelation policy for many others. >> now one of the questions coming out of this decision is what else will this apply to because as noted in the majority's opinion this could open up the door to what is referred to as, quote, the administrative state perhaps reining that in. what other government programs do you see this decision affecting? would you like to see this decision affecting? >> well, i think the court's decision today is an important win for the constitution and the democratic process and can affect many agencies' programs, especially when those agencies

look into old statutes for newfound authority that has not previously been used. and the reason i say -- >> like what? so like what? >> the constitution -- so for instance, we saw with the clean air and water plan from the epa, the court struck that down under the major questions doctrine, as well. we also saw with the eviction moratorium from the cdc -- >> i'm talking about prospectively, not about what they've done before. what else -- what other government programs would you like to see change using this decision, using this precedent that's set here? >> well, i think we need to wait and see what agencies attempt to stretch their authority beyond the authority that was granted to it by congress, and then look at those programs and the pre-existing precedent for using

those statutes and -- >> medicare? i mean, what about medicare that is raised by the minority opinion in this? is medicare one of those? >> it would depend on the change to medicare that the agency was proposing and whether it was a significant departure from the past policies that the agency has implemented and whether those policies create a significant economic and political effect. >> certainly with the changing population -- >> because -- >> these are things that could change, obviously the needs, the expenses of these programs that these agencies have power over. what about social security or medicaid? >> sure. again, it comes down to those same factors. and why this decision is so important is because it really also sends a message to congress to do its job as the people's representatives. whenever we think about a policy of immense political and economic significance, the people's representatives in

congress need to debate those issues and come to a compromise that's fair for most americans and achieves those policy objectives. it is not the role of the president or agencies to take on the legislative powers that are reserved to congress under our constitution. and so i'm not saying that certain policies should not be proceeded, just as chief justice roberts said in his opinion, the question here is not whether something should be done, it's who has the authority to do it. and under our constitution -- >> can i ask you, do you think congress does a good job with those tasks that you just said congress should be in charge of rather than relying on the executive branch? >> we have seen a polarization in congress and frequently an inability to act. but what i would blame that on is the ability to grant vague powers to the presidential

administration and to allow them to exercise powers and thereby shirk any responsibility with the voting electorate. but that is not the democratic process, and that's not the constitution's design. >> yeah. it is maybe not supposed to be the process, and we certainly see sometimes what tong does challenging -- congress does challenging what is supposed to be the process here. we appreciate your time. thank you so much. it's a very critical day here. >> thank you for having me. boris? >> up next, much more on the fallout from today's supreme court decisions including the court limiting lgbtq protections. "cnn news central" returns in a moment. ays say, son? liberty mutual customizes your car insurance... so you only pay fofor what you need. that's my boy. now you get out there, and you u make us proud, huh? ♪ bye, uncle l limu. ♪

stay off the freeways! only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ hi, i'm sharon, and i lost 52 pounds on golo. on other diets, i could barely lose 10-15 pounds. thanks to golo, i've lost 27% of mbody weight, and it was easy. (soft music) >> womanwhy did i choose safelite? i love my electric car, so when, i trusted the experts at safelite. with their state-of-the-art technology, they replaced the windshield, recalibrated the car's camera, and then recycled my old glass. i found out safelite recycles over three million windshields a year. great job! >> tech: thank you! >> woman: replace, recalibrate, recycle. i count on safelite. ♪ rock music ♪ >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪

but his vision dimmed with age. he had amd. i didn't know it then, but it can progress to ga, an advanced form of the disease. his struggle with vision loss from amd made me want to help you see warning signs of ga. like straight lines that seem wavy, blurry, or missing visual spots that make it hard to see faces like this one, or trouble with low light that makes driving at night a real challenge. if you've been diagnosed with amd and notice vision changes, don't wait. ga is irreversible. it's important to catch it early.

talk to your eye doctor about ga and learn more at gawontwait.com let's get back to the other major supreme court decision handed down today on the final day of its term. the justices ruling that certain businesses can refuse to serve gay couples. the 6-3 decision rooted in free

speech grounds sided with a christian web designer in colorado who refuses to create websites for same-sex weddings because of religious objections. we're joined now by sara kate ellis, president of g.l.a.d., the lgbtq advocacy group. thank you so much for being with us. i'm wondering what you're hearing from your members today and what you're sharing with them about your concerns. >> well, hi, thanks for having me. i'm hearing from my members today what i've been hearing since -- for months now honestly, that there feels like there's a coordinated attack against the lgbtq community. there's a lot of disappointment, a lot of sadness about this ruling and decision. and that the supreme court is now being used as a weapon against the lgbtq community. and that this is a pattern for this court in terms of taking rights away from marginalized

communities. >> speaking specifically about this decision, what's your response to those who argue that they're blocking the government from compelling speech, that this isn't discrimination because they're not blocking creators from providing a product, but rather the message that surround that product. what do you think? >> so i do -- i think this is a narrow decision, and specific to certain businesses. but this is part of a larger pattern, a larger pattern of erasing lgbtq people, and justice thomas in his decision on dobbs was clear that he was coming for obergefeld which gives us marriage equality in this country. to me even no it's narrow and it is -- it is narrow and it's specific in this case, it chips away at lgbtq people. and why should i and my wife not be treated equally in the eyes

of the law if every business across this country, why do certain people get certain carve-outs against our community? and will this lead to other carve-outs? what about jewish folks? what about people of color? like where does this line -- who's drawing the line and how far does it go? >> i'm also curious about an argument from kristen wagner, the attorney for the website designer. she said that essentially this is the same thing as a pro-abortion rights photographer not being forced to go photograph an anti-abortion rights rally. what do you think about that compare son? the issue that -- comparison? the issue that this creates more creative freedom? >> it's a false comparison. we're talking about human beings who are recognized under the law, who are allowed to get married in this country. we're not talking about your opinion on pro or anti abortion.

so i think that's -- that's an issue. we're not issues, we're actually people, and we exist in this world. when you can deny us service because of who we are, then you are treating us like a second-class citizen. we do not have full equality in this country. we need to be protected as a community. and we need to move the equality act forward in congress and in the house because it has not advanced, and that would help protect us against people's personal opinions and personal beliefs that that doesn't mean that we can appear in public at the same level as everyone else in this country. >> sarah, quickly, you said that this is part of a larger pattern of cases being brought to the supreme court. what do you think is going to be the focus of these groups next? >> well, i think -- i mean, we've seen at the state

legislative session since january, over 500 anti-lgbtq bills. we've never seen that kind of volume before in our lives. about 75 of them have been made into law. ten "don't say gay" bills are the law of the land in ten different states. we're seeing bans on books for lgbtq people, bans on drag artists, bans on trans youth, you know, participating in sports or existing in their world. and so i think this this is just part of that larger movement of anti-lgbtq people. but i want to point out what's really important here, two things -- one is that's not the way americans see. the supreme court is out of step with american public opinion. 91% of americans want lgbtq people to live free, happy, and do not have to deal with discrimination. so they're completely out of step.

also, this supreme court is a direct reflection of an extremist president donald trump, and voting matters. elections matter. so 2024 matters. >> sarah kate ellis, we thank you so much for your perspective and your time. >> thank you. >> jim? so much more to dig into. i'm joined by president of the jcn, a law clerk for justice thomas. she supports the web designer in this case. thanks for taking the time this afternoon. >> good to be here. >> i want to read if i can from her dissent, the dissent of associate justice sonia sotomayor. she said "today the court for the first time in its history grants a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class, the act of discrimination has never constituted protecting expression under the first amendment. our constitution contains no right to refuse service to a disfavored group." how do you answer that argument against in effect using freedom

of expression to allow this person to deny service? >> well, there is not about den -- this is not about denying service to a class. i respectfully disagree with that point as did the majority opinion. this is about refusing to bring a message that you disagree with and being allowed under the freedom of speech to not be forced to speak a message you disagree with. lori smith, much like jack phillips, the cake baker that has similar type of case coming out of california, is happy to produce websites for same-sex couples, as jack smith happy to produce cakes for them, arlene flowers, happy to arrange flowers for them. the question is when it comes to websites that provide a specific message. so a website celebrating a wedding that she disagrees with is something she will not do for a same-sex couple or heterosexual couple. that came up in the oral arguments. if a couple says we met -- we both were married to other

people, first it was aaffair and now we're getting married, she wouldn't do that website either. even if they're hetero sexual. it's not about are you same sex or opposite sex attracted. it's about the message that she disagrees with. >> you would understand why people at home would say, sounds like hair splitting to me because the end result is the same. you don't get the service, right? and it seems like -- >> you get all sorts of -- >> it becomes -- >> for their business -- no, she ae she'd be happy to provide the website for their business, home sale, all sorts of other things. not for that particular wedding because that is the only thing that she is disagreeing with. it's the message about that wedding. this would apply across the board. this means that, for example, as also came up during arguments if the washington blade, a local lgbtq pro newspaper, wanted to say for the months of june we're only going to have same-sex marriage announcements, they could do that now. what colorado is arguing is they wouldn't be allowed to do that. as a gay newspaper they would

have to put just as many hetero sexual in as homosexual. it makes no sense. everyone should be allowed their opinion. that's what's great about the first amendment. that's why the -- they agree nazis have a right in our country to speak and we have a corollary right not to be forced to speak messages that we disagree with. >> let me ask you this because it's also about how the court approaches these broader issues here. in -- when it comes to same-sex marriages, lgbtq rights, et cetera. in 2020, the court decided that the 1964 civil rights act that sex as defined or referenced under that act includes in effect sexual orientation, i believe neil gorsuch, conservative member, wrote that decision. why are those consistent, right? if in effect the court is saying that sexual orientation is protected under the constitution, why is it consistency with this decision?

>> obviously justice gorsuch himself who wrote it agrees that it is consistent. here's why -- because as i've been explaining, it's not about denying a service based on class, but it's about not wanting to bring a message. so there's a whole host of messages that lori smith is not willing to bring. and that other people might not want to give. i think the example that you alluded to before with christian wagner, if you are a pro-abortion photographer, you shouldn't be forced to do work for an organization that you disagree with. >> i get that narrow argument. but -- >> on different things -- >> as you know, being a close follower of the court, not as simple as that narrow argument because you also have religious freedom cases argued from a different direction in effect but with the same effect to restrict in the view, and we had someone on from an lgbtq community who reads it very differently from you, and it's happening at a time where there are hundreds of laws that are moving their way through state

legislatures, pushed by republicans that are targeting transgender people. other interactions with folks from the lgbtq groups. so given that totality, how do you give folks watching right now at home, who may be in that group, to say that their rights will be protected, that this court doesn't have a broader view that is far more restrictive than, frankly, a majority of the members of the public view lgbtq rights? >> look, this is the end of pride month. it was hard to find a business that wasn't flying a rainbow flag on it. there are a lot of people who are very supportive of lgbtq rights. however,t of people who are very supportive of lgbtq rights. however, obergafeld, the decision on which same-sex marriage was nationalized across the country, justice kennedy said the first amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so

fulfilling and natural to their lives and faith and their deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. the promise was don't worry, making same-sex marriage the law across the land is not going to mean that you are not allowed to have and advance your belief that that's not your view of marriage, right? however, what we're seeing here is people who are now saying, all right, now we're going to erase that part of obergafelo t. they're happy to, anlining up to do that. there are a lot of people who want to celebrate same-sex marriage. >> the reality is of course -- >> there are lots of people who have core beliefs and shouldn't be forced and dragged into doing so against their beliefs just like those who are in favor of same-sex marriage should not be forced to make websites, for example, opposing it. they shouldn't be allowed to do that either, and they're not thanks to our first amendment. >> listen, longer discussion as you know, there's great concern about obergafel specifically given the court has changed since kennedy left and that may be the next target.

we'll leave that for another time. thank you so much. brianna? ukraine's military intel chief claiming that russia is plotting to assassinate the leader of wagner, yevgeny prigozhin. we'll have new details on that when "cnn news central" returns. and also ahead, senate republicans who pushed to end president biden's student loan forgiveness program now acknowledging that today's supreme court decision could lead to backlash from voters. we'll have more on the potential political fallout ahead. to reel in the fun and savor every bite. to help p you get ready your aspen denental team is celebrating 25 years of afaffordable care with an epic summer of smiles evevent. don't miss enjoying a moment,, with our onsite labs to help you, fast, and 20% off your denture care. so, whether you need a new look or a quick fix, you can celebrate with a smile all season— always at aspen dental. book today.

sleepovers just aren't what they used to be. a house full of screens? basically no hiccups? you guys have no idea how good you've got it. how old are you? like, 80? back in my day, it was scary stories and flashlights. we don't get scared.

oh, really? mom can see your search history. that's what i thought. introducing the next generation 10g network. only from xfinity.

we may now have a better understanding of why wagner chief yevgeny prigozhin has remained out of public view. just days after his mercenaries abandoned their insurrection in russia, the head of ukraine's military intelligence says the kremlin is plotting to assassinate the former putin ally. this is according to an interview with the war zone media outlet. cnn's nick paton walsh is joining us from kyiv on this story. given the frequency of putin's critics turning up dead, how surprising is this? >> reporter: i think the thing that's most surprising is that yevgeny prigozhin appears to still be a free man and very much alive as far as we can tell. now ukrainian defense intelligence obviously part of their job is to sow information out there, be it true or not.

they do have good sources about what's happening inside russia a lot of the time to be sure that the republicans are always watching their backs and feeling uncomfortable in their war of choice here invading ukraine. yevgeny prigozhin, as you say, has not been seen in public for quite some time, not since rostov on saturday. left a lengthy audio message days ago describing the deal he made. part of that deal with the kremlin and also belarus' president lukashenko involved him going to belarus. now we know that the president of belarus says that's happened, but yevgeny prigozhin, who's never been shy about telling people of his whereabouts or thoughts over the past months, has pretty much gone silent. there have been unverified sightings of someone who looked a bit like him in a helicopter affiliated with him in st. petersburg. his planes affiliated with him have gone between st. petersburg, moscow, minsk, but nothing confirming that. that leads you to question has he somehow reneged on the deal into exile, is he in hiding because he fears exactly what

ukrainian intelligence may be saying could be about to happen to him? but you've got to ask the big question here -- how was he not intercepted before by the russian security services? is he still roaming around now and they're hunting him down? all of this speaks to a collapse of putin's power and real divisions in the security establishment which he once ruled supreme over. >> yeah, certainly does. nick paton walsh live for us from kyiv. thank you for that report. jim? ahead, they pushed to end the president's student debt forgiveness plan. now republicans are bracing for what could be a political backlash. uh..... here i'll take that. -everyone: woo hoo! ensure max protein with 30 grams ofof protein, one gram of sugar. enter the nourishingng moments giveaway for a chance to w win $10,000.

♪ (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.

income tax. sales tax. gas tax. californians pay some of the highest taxes in the nation. but now lawmakers are proposing a so-called “link tax” that would charge websites every time they link to a news article online. experts warn it could undermine the open internet, punish local newspapers, while subsidizing hedge funds and big media corporations. so tell lawmakers: oppose ab886, because another new tax is the last thing we need. paid for by ccia.

just in to cnn, the white house confirmed that president biden will deliver remarks on the supreme court decision blocking his student debt relief program at 3:30 p.m. today. so just under two hours from now. we will bring that to you live. first let's get some reaction from capitol hill with cnn congressional correspondent lauren fox who's there for us. so what are officials there saying about this decision? >> reporter: yeah, i mean, it is congressional recess, but a number of republicans who are on recess right now from capitol hill, they are putting out statements applauding ing this decision by the supreme court, and from mitch mcconnell, the republican leader in the senate, saying the president of the united states cannot hijack 20 years old emergency powers to pad the pockets of high-earning base and make suckers out of working families who choose not

to take on student debt. the court's decision today deals a heavy blow to democrats who distorted the outsized view of executive power. meanwhile, you have democrats pushing back with majority leader chuck schumer saying in a statement that this court decision is a, quote, cruel ruling, and that it shows the callousness of the maga republican-controlled supreme court. as justices accept lavish six-figure gifts, they don't dare help americans saddled with student loan debt. we should note that there were two very important supreme court decisions today. while there were a handful of republicans who put out statements about that colorado case, there were many republican leaders who have yet to weigh in. and it just really goes to show you, boris, the reality that public opinion on gay marriage and gay rights has changed so radically over the last several decades on capitol hill that a lot of republicans view it potentially as politically problematic to weigh in. so a number of senators, a

number of republican house leaders put out statements about the student loan decision, and yet we have not heard from them yet on the other case from colorado. boris? >> very important to point that out. lauren fox on capitol hill. thank you so much. jim? all right. believe it or not, this is new york city today. you can barely even see the empire state building through all that smog. this smoke from the canadian wildfires hanging over parts of the u.s. how long is it going to stick around this time? we'll let you know coming up. ...or blasting the air conditioning. because the tempur-breeze feels s up to 10° cooler, all night long. for a limited time, save $500 on all-new tempur-breeeeze mattresses. (♪) this electric feels different... because it's powered by the most potent source of energy there is ... you. this is e lexus variety of electrification ...

inspired by, created for and powered by you. ♪

more shopping? you should watch your spending honey. i'm saving with liberty mutual, mom. they customize your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. check it out, you could save $700 dollars just by switching. ooooh, i'll look into that. let me put a reminder on my phone. save $700 dollars. pick up dad from airport? ohhhhhh. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ our ears connect us to the moments that matter. give them the nutrients they need with lipo.

it's formulated with ingredients clinically shown to protect your ears from dizziness, ear ringing, and even hearing loss. never miss a moment with lipo flavonoid.

is it possible to protect my business from cyber threats? it is, with comcast business. helping every connected device stay protected. yours. your employees'. even... susan? hers, too. safe. secure. and powered by the next generation 10g network. with comcast business, advanced security isn't just possible. it's happening. get started wih fast spees and advanced security for $49.99a month for 12 monts plus ask how to get up to a $750 prepaid card with qualifying internet.

at wlleast a dozen states under air quality warnings as the canadian wildfire smoke drifts south across the border. allison chinchar has been following this. give us a sense of how broad this is. i suppose the question is where the wind patd eterns are, will folks get relief by july 4th? >> the short answer is yes, we're going to see relief in the coming days. for some areas, it'll take longer than others. this is a live look at new york right nouchltw. again, you can see the hazy smoke off into the distance there. they're not the only ones dealing with that. you have a lot of these areas across the great lakes region and the northeast where you have those air quality alerts and that unhealthy range. it's pretty widespread. even dips farther into the

mid-atlantic, down into the southeast. again, it's not just an isolated problem here for maybe a state or two or three. you really have a lot of these areas that are dealing with that smoke. one thing to note is yesterday and the day before, we had a lot more of that widespread across the midwest. thanks to rain showers and storms that moved through, we were able to clear out a lot of that smoke. the same thing will happen as we push later into the weekend, where you're really going to see a lot of that smoke clear back out across the ohio valley, the tennessee valley, and areas of the mid-atlantic. eventually into the northeast, as well, maybe perhaps at least 48 hours from now and into monday and tuesday of next week. but we will get there. we just have to wait for a lot of those rain showers to come in and clear the air out. another big concern for this weekend is the prolonged heat. it's not just across the south but also out to the west, as well. those afternoon high temperatures getting well into the triple digits, and the overnight lows not really dropping below 80 degrees.

>> goodness. we need rain for the smoke and rain for the heat. we'll keep looking for it. allison chinchar at the weather center, thank you. historic decisions from the supreme court today limiting lgbtq protections in the name of free speech and blocking president biden's student loan forgiveness plan as overreach by government. we will be hearing from the president in the 3:00 hour. we'll be bringing that to you live. uty bis gentle. it not only cleans, it hydrates my skin. as a dermatologist, i want what's b best for our skin. with 1/4 moisturizing cream, dove is the #1 bar dermatologists u use at home.

- i got the cabin for three days. it's gonna be sweet! what? i'm 12 hours short. - have a fun weekend. - ♪ unnecessary action hero! unnecessary. ♪ - was that necessary? - no. neither is a blown weekend. with paycom, employees do their own payroll so you can fix problems before they become problems. - hmm! get paycom and make the unnecessary, unnecessary. - see you down the line. using the finest materials, like indulgent memory foam, and ultra-conforming innersprings, for a beautiful mattress, and indescribable comfort. for a limited time, save $400 on select stearns & foster mattresses.