- 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.

biden's student loan relief lock, the supreme court strikes down the plan that would affect tens of millions ofob borrows. the president is planning to announce new actions on student loans. the supreme court also ruling certain businesses can refuse lgbtq customers. the conservative majority citing the free speech argument, while the liberal justices warn the decision could lead to other kinds of discrimination. they are the members of our military who protect our national waters and conduct urgent rescue missions at a moment's notice, but a secret investigation reveals a dark history of the u.s. coast guard. years of rapes, assaults and serious misconduct allegations all ignored. cnn has exclusive reporting on the years long coverup. we are following these major

developments and more, all coming in here to cnn news center. the supreme court wrapped up its term today with a bang. a pair of rulings that will impact americans for years to come. one immediately affects the pocketbooks of some 40 million americans. the court scrapped president biden's student loan forgiveness plan, a decision with a $400 billion impact. we are awaiting remarks from president biden. he is expected to announce what he hopes will be new actions on student debt in response to this court decision. the other case finds the conservative majority ruling a christian designer can deny wedding services to a same-sex couple. both decisions 6-3. jessica snide schneider is here. let's begin on the student let case. made its way through the system

very quickly, a challenge to an existing policy here to get to this conclusion today. was this expected from the conservative court? >> it was. the biden administration faced severe criticism, pushback from the conservative members of this court during argument. their arguments were exactly what was reflected in the opinion. you know, as a measure of fairness. why some people paid back student loans and now you're giving a free pass to others? also, the expanse of the heros act. it allows the secretary of education to act in emergency situations when it comes to student loans. the court here saying, you acted in too broad of a manner. the statute never intended for this. it is a $400 billion price tag, and the court said that is just too large for you to act on your own. >> the heros act goes back to the wake of 9/11, right? >> exactly. >> the argument is, you are stretching what that was intended to act with student loan forgiveness. >> they're saying it was a matter for congress, not the executive branch. the program has been scrapped.

>> which has been something we've heard a lot from this court, a matter for congress, not the executive branch. let's talk about the other case here, though. this on wedding websites. in effect, giving a business the ability not to build a website for a same-sex couple. the court arguing, the conservative majority, i should say, arguing this was not about discrimination but purely about free expression. how did they make that point? >> exactly. it was an interesting argument, that this wedding website designer brought. she said, you are violating my free speech by this colorado law that says you can't discriminate against people for their sexual orientation. she twisted that. again, we've seen very clever legal arguments that have made big changes in the past few years. she said it's violating my free speech. the justices seized on that and said, you are correct. this public accommodations law in colorado violates your free speech, and this will have a ripple effect in public accommodations laws throughout the country. it remains to be seen what the fallout is going to be. >> the question is, and by the

way, i had a long interview with someone on the conservative side in the last hour on this, that's, in effect, used as a path to discriminate. it's called freedom of expression. that's what the dissent was from justice socitomayor. >> in the arguments, they said, but where does it end? you allow people to say, "i have a creative business, an expressive business." first of all, what are creative businesses? what are expressive? this was a website. does it pertain to chefs, to bakers? and when does it stop? is it just about same-sex couples? you know, justice sotomayor talked about interracial couples. that's a concern here. >> a whole host. let's bring in legal analyst joey jackson, as well. what a week for the supreme court. these aren't just theoretical cases. they have real impact on real people today. what's your response to the conservative argument here, that this case about web design for a same-sex couple is purely about

freedom of speech and is not discrimination, should not be seen as discrimination, at least from a constitutional standpoint. >> yeah, jim, it's hard to reconcile that approach with reality. i think any smart lawyer, and we know the supreme court is composed of nine of them, can make clever arguments. just because you can make an argument doesn't mean it can be lu. we can't live in a society where you constitutionally protect discrimination. in my view, that's what this does. to be clear, there are constitutional rights everyone enjoyed but there are limits. the limits on the rights apply when you impair someone else's rights. w we're talking about first amendment. fire, can want yell that, can you, because someone could be injured in any other way. you cannot defame someone. that is, state something false that impairs their reputation. there are a number of things related to speech that are regulated every day because they now affect someone else. you can't regulate the issue of discrimination through speech? you're going to couch it in the form of speech and say, hey, you

don't have to because it's your right not to say. i think when we move to a place where we're allowing the constitution to protect discrimination, because we make these arguments that say, oh, if you don't believe in it y, you don't have to get into that, you don't have to serve anyone, what's next? there are a lot of other things you can discriminate on in public accommodations. that's where, really, it becomes highly problematic and extraordinarily disappointing. >> there are, as you know, hundreds of bills and some have already been passed, working their way through reason-controlled state legislatures, that target lgbt community, transgender community here. i wonder, as an effect of this ruling, should we expect legislators to begin writing those laws as a free speech argument? in effect, knowing it'll get core protection? >> yeah, i think even that is obviously of concern, right? the drafting of the laws, knowing how you have the highest court in the land that endorses

that. i think beyond the courts is the everyday interaction now that we as people and going out to society have to deal with. are there going to be places that limit who they serve and how they serve and what they serve, saying, hey, it's my constitutional right. it's a form of expression, whether i should seat you. it's a form of expression, whether i should produce a website that includes you and is inclusive of you and what you're about. it is troubling along so many lines. the bottom line as i noted, and i'll end with what i started with, we regulate speech, commercial speech, can't be false or misleading. so many things we regulate because your rights have to stop -- or not stop, but they have to certainly account for others. when we start doing things that impair other people's rights, we have to draw lines. this line is drawn in a way that i think is misguided. elections have consequences. we know what the composition of the court is, and this is the result of that, jim. >> let me ask about the student loan forgiveness thing. the conserve ative justices her

are making the point that biden's justification for loan forgiveness, taking advantage of the heros act which dates back to 9/11, was stretching the original goal and intent of that law. do you -- from a legal standpoint, from a practical standpoint, do you buy that argument? >> so, jim, what you have to look at in anything is the plain text of what the law provides. the law that i read speaks to the secretary of education, has the right to waive or modify. waive or modify seems plain to me. in english, you can waive something or modify, amend it, right? >> right. >> waive it completely or amend it. the supreme court is saying, that's not what waive means. that's not what modify meant. it is in congress' authority to do those things. you don't have the authority. congress implemented the legislation, giving the secretary of education the ability to do that. when the secretary does that, you say, well, you went too far. waive doesn't really mean waive. modify doesn't really mean modify. so i just think that the way in which they are couching it,

right, is really, you're being an activist court. you have people who are not elected who are making decisions, and that's highly problematic and highly troubling. yes, we have a separation of branches, jim. we have to respect that. but we have programs that the government implements every day that we depend upon our federal agencies, like this one, to implement. now, they're going to say congress didn't grant that broad of authority. if congress wanted to circumscribe or limit what you do, use different words. don't use modify or waive. it's getting to the point where i don't want to overstate it, but are we recognizing the country we live in based on the rulings? first abortion and now this, what is next? it is troubling and disappointing as a lawyer and as a person. >> the court says it'll take up a major gun rights case in its next term, as well. joey jackson, always good to have you break it down. the biden administration has been bracing for today's decision, spending months prepping contingency plans on

the student debt issue, in particular. a short time from now, we are going to be hearing from the president about his next steps. cnn's jeremy diamond is live for us at the white house. what are the next steps? what options are on the table at this point? >> reporter: well, we are expected to hear directly from the president exactly what those next steps will be. one thing is for sure, the president is also going to be touting some of the other actions he has taken to address this broader issue of college affordability. in a statement earlier today, the president made clear that he's also going to be talking about increasing the maximum pell grant, for example, forgiving loans for public service jobs and also the income-based payment program, soon set to go into effect. recapping payment on student loans to a maximum of 5% of a person's income. but the president describing this student loan forgiveness program that would have gone into effect, he said it would have been a lifeline to millions of americans. it's really important to state the impact that this would have had. the white house says that this

could have been more than 40 million people who could have benefitted from this program. what is very clear is that the president is also going to turn this into a my capolitical issu going after republicans for trying to dismantle his program and taking it to the supreme court, where he got this ruling. the president saying this, the hypocrisy of republican elected officials is stunning. they had no problem with billions in pandemic-related loans to businesses, including hundreds of thousands, and in some cases millions of dollars for their own businesses. the loans were forgiven. when it comes to hard working americans, they did everything in their power to stop it. that goes to the fundamental political challenge that the president now faces going forward here, which is that, you know, this could be a negative for the president. he promised to forgive at least $10,000 in student debt during his 2020 campaign. he tried to do that. he was blocked by the supreme court. will young voters penalize him for that? this is the white house's response to that, which is to go on the offensive and say, look, we tried to do what we could

here. it was republicans who took this issue to the supreme court and who are now -- and now a conservative majority in the supreme court has blocked this problem. certainly, the implications here are tremendous for the 2024 elections, and we'll see how this galvanizes democratic voters going forward. >> we will. jeremy diamond live at the white house, thank you. boris? let's talk about the implications on the broader economy with cnn economics and political commentator. catherine, always great to see you. 26 million people applied for this program. 16 million were approved. you say many were relying on their debt to be canceled, so what advice do you have for these borrowers now? where do they go from here? >> i think they should not assume that there is a plan b that will end up with their debt being forgiven. i know that the white house has teased a potential alternative form of relief. we haven't heard what that is. but i think the legal foundations of this are flimsy

enough that it is not a safe bet to assume that this debt is going to go away. when the payment pause lifts, which will happen in the fall, these payments will likely re re resume, and people should take that into account in their budgets. >> there are about 43 million student loan borrowers. the average loan is roughly $37,000. what impact do you think this is going to have on the broader economy? >> well, there's some evidence that people may have already spent the payments -- excuse me -- the debt that they were expecting to be forgiveness. more often, the literature seems to suggest it was the payment pause, you know, independent of whether there was long-term forgiveness, that had a stimulative effect on the economy and encouraged more spending.

on the margin, the group of student debt policies we have had in place since 2020 and then add on top of that this announced student debt forgiveness plan back in, i guess it was august of 2022, have probably been somewhat inflationary. you know, on the margin. maybe not a big impact but a little bit. once these payments resume, again, they were set to resume no matter what starting in the fall, and they will also resume for the people who thaought tha their balances had been wiped out. that will probably be modestly disinflationary. that is, it will draw some money out of people's alternative spending opportunities, right? maybe they're going to have to spend more money on their debt payments, student loan payments, that they would have otherwise spent on a house or a car or a vacation or other forms of consumption. one thing that i am worried about is that you might see a wave of defaults, both because,

you know, people are having to pay these monthly payments once again, and that's always going to be costly for people. but also because people aren't used to having to pay these things because they haven't had to make these monthly payments in over three years at this point. so you might see some defaults above and beyond what we'd normally kexpect because of additional stress, because people may have spent the money they should have been saving in anticipation of a potential forgiveness event that did not materialize. there may just be accidental defaults because people aren't used to paying and they don't realize they have to reenroll or enroll perhaps for the first time in autopay plans. >> you mentioned for borrowers not to anticipate a plan b. we're het to hear from president biden in just about an hour or so, and he is going to present potentially different options for these borrowers. what options does he actually

have at his disposal now that the supreme court has argued that his authority doesn't extend that far? >> i think whatever -- i don't know, to be candid, what he is going to announce. i have been asking for months what the plan b was going to be, what alternatives they have, and the consistent response i had been getting for months was, "we think we're going to win. we're not making contingency plans," which obviously is not true. they've developed some kind of backup plan. but i think whatever it is that they may announce today will probably have a less solid legal footing than even the proposal that was struck down today, right? otherwise, that would have been their plan a. i think it is unlikely that whatever it is they announce today will ultimately survive. now, they could expand the repayment programs, for example. that's a separate measure that biden had announced last summer,

which would have sort of the same effect or consequence, potentially, of alleviating debt, but, you know, in terms of actually wiping out debt, i think they have very few, if any, options. >> we will be watching the president's remarks live. catherine rampell, thank you so much for being with us. >> thank you. liberal justices are concerned that the supreme court ruling that limits lgbtq protections in the name of free speech will lead to further discrimination. we're going to speak to the president of the human rights campaign about that next. also, we're going to speak to the attorney for the web designer in the case. she argued that she was not discriminating against anyone. we'll have that interview ahead. later, cnn exclusive reporting, damning findingssexu assaults at the coast guard academy, kept secret by high-ranking officials for years. you're watching "cnn news central." we'll be right back.

♪ >> a announcer: "cnn newews cen" is brought doto you by -- e. and here. not so much here. if you havchronic kidney disease, farxiga can help you keep livinlife. ♪ farxiga ♪ and faiga reduces thrisk of kidney failure, which can lead to dialysis. farxiga can cause serious side effects including dehydration, urinary tract or genital yeast infections in women and men, and low blood sugar. ketoacidosis is a serious side effect that may lead to death. a rare life-threatening bacterial infection in the skin of the perineum could occur. stop taking farxiga and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of this bacterial infection, an allergic reaction, or ketoacidosis. farxiga can help you keep living life. ask your doctor for farxiga for chronic kidney disease. if you can't afford your medication,

astrazeneca may be able to help. ♪ farxiga ♪ i brought in ensure max protein with 30g of protein. those who tried me felt more energy in just two weeks. uh... here i'll take that. -everyone: woo hoo! ensure max protein with 30 grams of protein, one gram of sugar. enter the nourishing moments giveaway for a chance to win $10,000. i'm jonathan lawson here to tell you about life insurance through the colonial penn program. if you're age 50 to 85, and looking to buy life insurance on a fixed budget, remember the three ps. what are the three ps? the three ps of life insurance on a fixed budget are price, price, and price. a price you can afford, a price that can't increase, and a price that fits your budget.

i'm 54, what's my price? you can get coverage for $9.95 a month. i'm 65 and take medications. what's my price? also $9.95 a month. i just turned 80, what's my price? $9.95 a month for you too. if you're age 50 to 85, call now about the #1 most popular whole life insurance plan available through the colonial penn program. it has an affordable rate starting at $9.95 a month. no medical exam, no health questions. your acceptance is guaranteed. and this plan has a guaranteed lifetime rate lock so your rate can never go up for any reason. so call now for free information and you'll also get this free beneficiary planner. and it's yours free just for calling. so call now for free information.

my most important kitchen tool? my brain. so i choose neuriva plus. unlike some others, neuriva plus is a multitasker supporting 6 key indicators of brain health. to help keep me sharp. neuriva: think bigger.

this morning, the supreme court handed down a major decision rooted in first amendment rights, but opponents say it violates the civil rights act. six justices ruled that certain businesses can refuse to serve gay people. in this case, they sided with a christian website designer in colorado who doesn't want to create websites for same-sex weddings due to religious objections. kelly robinson is with us now. she is the president of the human rights campaign. kelly, thank you for being with us today. this argument that won over the majority is this is not discrimination because they are not refusing to provide a product,p refusing to provide speech. what do you say to that? >> this is absolutely discrimination. it is giving license to businesses to deny services to lgbtq+ people simply for being who we are, simply for loving who we love. i also think it's true that what this decision doesn't do is provide unfettered access for federal and state governments to

discriminate. it should be viewed as a very narrow decision that only applies to original custom goods and services. so, i mean, yes, it does mean that a website designer can refuse to create a custom website for a gay couple, but they cannot refuse to offer a standard designer template website to the same couple. it does mean that a photographer could refuse to give a custom engagement sex to an inter-faith couple, but it does not mean the same photographer can allow the inter-faith couple to not have access to a standard package. we should view this as narrowly. bigger than that, we should take it as an idcatndication of what court is doing, rolling back rights. it is opening the door for discrimination in this country to advance. >> earlier this month, it was declared a national state of emergency for members of the lgbtq+ community. would this ruling be as worrisome to you, as problematic, if it were not in the midst of what we are seeing

as a nationwide, sort of repudiation of gay and transgender americans? >> this ruling is dangerous on its own, full stop, period. and in this broader context, we have to see it for what it is. part of a campaign of hate and discrimination by our opposition to target lgbtq+ people for political points. there are organizations that are behind not only the hundreds of bad bills we've seen in the states but also behind these court cases, that their soul goal is to promote hate. organizations like the alliance defending freedom, they are the same organization that supported criminalizing same-sex marriage. they're the same organization that was behind the dobbs case, that overturned roe v. wade. let's see this for what it is. a campaign of hate that has to be stopped. >> in his ruling, justice gor gorsuch, in his opinion, he raises hypotheticals of a muslim move vmovie director making a

movie with an opposing message. without the protection, they could be compelled to do those things. is he correct there? >> i want to talk about the real-life application of what is happening. lgbtq+ people across this country are already experiencing record numbers of hate crimes against us and incredible waves of anti-lgbtq+ legislation meant to harm us, and discrimination that's legalized in more than half ask states. i mean, today, a same-sex couple could be kicked out of a restaurant for being gay. a same-sex couple could be kicked out of a grocery store for holding hands. a trans person could be kicked out of a barbershop. discrimination is happening in this country now, and it is a real problem. i don't care what sort of rhetoric you try to wrap it in. at the end of the day, this case is legalizing discrimination that has to be addressed.

>> thank you so much for being with us. we really, really do appreciate your time. kelly brobinson with the human rights campaign. boris? let's get to the other side of this argument now. we're joined by the attorney for the webb designer at the center of the case, wagner. thank you for being with us today. you argue that disagreement isn't discrimination, but is it refusing a service to someone based on who they choose to marry discrimination? >> that's not what's happening here. i think that there is a lot of rhetoric that's going on about this case, and i would encourage all americans to actually read the decision rather than rely on the rhetoric. we know that this case involves someone who creates speech. it's stipulated by colorado that she serves everyone, that she has lgbt clients, but there are some messages she will not create. yes, some of the messages have

to do with same-sex marriage, but there are lots of other messages she won't create that have nothing to do with sexuality. and this ruling protects the lgbt website designer just as much as it protects someone like lori. >> so you're arguing, essentially, that this isn't about gay marriage specifically? >> it's not about gay marriage specifically. it's about whether the government can force an american to say something that they don't believe. >> so what are the other issues she refuses to design websites about or the other messages she refuses to endorse on the website? >> think of the different websites a designer would be asked to create. websites that might express different political views she disagrees with. websites that would promote atheism or some other particular viewpoint that contradicts her faith. >> sure. what about the argument that there was no actual harm? the question of standing in this case, because this was a hypothetical that was brought before the supreme court. was she actually harmed? she never actually was asked to make a website for a gay couple,

was she? >> i'm surprised you're even asking that in the sense that she was harmed. colorado has been the most aggressive state -- >> she hadn't started the business. >> she had started the business, and she wanted to go in to design custom wedding websites. >> she wasn't penalize bid the state for this. she hadn't experienced harm yet. >> her speech was chilled. she couldn't enter into the business because colorado consistently, not just against her, but like-minded individuals, because they would punish, excessively punish, those who would express this view and decline to express a view that supports same-sex marriage. colorado is notorious. surely you've heard of masterpiece cake shop. >> i worked in colorado when it was happening and spoke to the key players. you were part of the case, as well. >> i was. >> is there a campaign on behalf of folks within your organization to target the rights of lgbtq people? >> there's a campaign on behalf of alliance defending freedom to protect free speech for everyone. the court's decision today said that public accommodation laws

will continue to apply, that they've co-existed with the first amendment for decades, and people won't be denied access to goods and services. and we will protect the rights of free speech, including those who support same-sex marriage. >> i'm curious about a perspective that was brought about in the dissent from justice sotomayor. your client believes that marriage should remain between a man and a woman. there are creators out there who believe that marriage should remain between people of the same race. would you argue on behalf of folks who do not believe in interracial marriage, because it is their point of view of the world? >> i would not argue on their behalf, and that's a reprehensible view. i think what is important here to remember, though, is that's not the facts of the case the court decided today. the court said if it is clear that a speaker is distinguishing on the basis of a message they're being asked to create, that they can't be compelled by the government to express a message.

the government can't ruin them because they dislike the message. these laws right now in some states, they actually impose jail time if you decline to express a message that violates your conscience. >> so what would you say to folks who feel margized e inali the decision, saying the message put forward by folks who oppose the right of same-sex couples to marry is reprehensible? >> i would say that they have the right, thanks to this decision, to enter the public square and give voice to that view and to persuade their neighbor, to test ideas, to explore truth, to advance social progress. all of that is because if we want to have that right for ourselves, we have to protect it for those who disagree with us. that's how we have social progress. >> so you mention that this is part of a campaign to protect freedom of speech. obviously, you tried a case previously before the supreme court in the masterpiece bakery case. what is next? what do you have your sights on

next? >> well, we are an organization that protects free speech for everyone and religious freedom for everyone. we are going to ensure that this decision applies and the other cases where truly artists, photographers are facing jail time. also, again, standing for the rights of people of all faiths and no faith at all, that we can all intenter the public square protect ourselves and our neighbors. >> i have a dozen more questions for you. unfortunately, we have to leave it there. we appreciate your time and sharing your perspective with us. >> thank you. >> of course. jim? still to come, a secret investigation into the coast guard academy revealed years of sexual assault coverups there. we'll have more on cnn's exclusive reporting coming up. they customize your car insurance so you only pay fofor what you need. check it out, you coululd save $700 dollars just by switching. ooooooh, i'll look into that. let me put a reminder on my phone.e. save $700 dollars. pick up dad from airport?

ohhhhhh. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ when migraine strikes, you're faced with a choice. ride it out with the tradeoffs of treating? or push through the pain and symptoms? with ubrelvy, there's another option. treat it anytime, anywhere without rrying where you are or if it's too late. do not take with strong cyp3a4 inhibitors. allergic reactions to ubrelvy can happen. most common side effects were nausea and sleepiness. migraine pain relief starts with u. ask about ubrelvy. learn how abbvie could help you save.

show summer who's boss with wayfair's fourth of july clearance. shop all the top grills and more up to 40% off. with smokin' fast shipping. and get wayfair deals so epic, it'll feel like you're getting away with something. yes! so take summer into your own hands - and get extra outdoorsy with wayfair's fourth of july clearance. june 28 through july 5. ♪ wayfair you've got just what i need ♪ hi, i'm norma, and i lost 53 pounds on golo. once i entered menopause, i did not like the fact that i had gained body fat around my waist. and i thought, "oh, no, that can't happen." i've never had that problem. after starting golo and taking release, i immediately saw an improvement in my waistline. a lot of people expect to fall apart as they age, but since taking release, i've never felt better.

thanks to golo, i'm 66 but i feel like i'm 36. (soft music) ♪ hit it ♪ ♪ it takes two to make a thing go right ♪ ♪ it takes two to make it outta sight ♪ ♪ it takes two to make a thing go right ♪ ♪ it takes two to make it outta sight ♪ ♪ one, two, get loose now ♪ ♪ it takes two to make a... ♪ ♪ it takes two to make a... ♪ ♪ it takes two to make a... ♪ ♪ it takes two to make a... ♪ ♪ it takes two to make a... ♪ ♪ it takes two to make a... ♪ stay two nights and get a $ 50 best western gift card. book now at bestwestern.com.

now to a cnn exclusive. the coast guard has been hiding a damning investigation and report about sexual assaults at its academy for years, until cnn recently uncovered it. cnn chief investigative correspondent pamela brown is with us now on this incredibly important investigation. tell us what's in this report. >> it's called operation foul anchor. it was an investigation into sexual assaults at the coast guard academy, which uncovered a history of substantiated rapes and assaults that were ig norred ignored or covered up by officials. the report was completed a few years ago. the findings were kept secret by coast guard's top leadership. get this, after all this time, the coast guard finally came clean and reported it to congress this month, only after

cnn's investigative team asked about it. the report found dozens of cases of alleged sexual assault at the coast guard academy, even though they only looked from 1988 to 2006. here are some more high liegtli that's in the report. there was a disturbing pattern of not treating sexual assaults as criminal matters, even in cases where there was overwhelming evidence. leadership was more concerned at the time about coast guard academy reputation than about the victims of crimes who were members of service. the suspects and sometimes the victims were simply disenrolled from the academy with no investigation at all. if there were punishments, i mean, they were laughable. extra homework, lower class standings, even those pushed out of the academy were sometimes able to serve in the military. >> unbelievable. they bury it for years, five years, and as you said, finally reporting it to congress just this week. after you've asked for comment, which is not a very good look, i

will say, for the coast guard in this case. >> by the way, right before a holiday weekend. >> very much so. so the report, of course, talks about the past, but you talked with a woman who was a more recent cadet at the coast guard academy. >> yeah, that's right. i sat down with this young woman. she just got her diploma last year. the culture hasn't changed. she was sexually assaulted as a cadet multiple times. she asked us to hide her identity, to tell us what happened to her. take a listen. >> i was sexually assaulted three times. the first by a superior. the second time by somebody i considered a dear friend. and a third by an international cadet. it was completely toxic and devastating to my sense of self. left lifelong damages to my physical, mental health. the coast guard academy employs, reinforces and cultivates a

system that thrives on the trauma and pain of women and minorities. it's addydesigned for their fai. >> the coast guard investigated one of her assaults but said there wasn't enough evidence. >> is the coast guard saying anything about this larger investigation operation fouled anchor? >> cnn repeatedly reached out to the coast guard for answers to our detailed questions. instead of responding, the coast guard went to congress to fess up about this report they had buried for several years. they did send cnn a statement saying in part, they're dedicated to addressing the needs of survivorers accountabl. we'll have more with my incredible colleagues working on this. >> it is an incredible investigation, and it is so important. these are the things that the military needs to face, right, if they're going to be attracting recruits as they so desperately want to do right now.

>> you have to wonder, had they implemented changes as a result of this report, would the young woman i sat down with, would she have experienced what she had? >> she certainly would have had a better shot, you can argue that. pamela brown, thank you for this. jim? in a blistering dissent, justice kagan sharply criticized the conservative majority's rulings, accusing them of substituting themselves, quote, for congress and the executive branch. more on the political battles decided in the supreme court and all the effects of these decisions coming up. ♪

neither snowcapped mountains, nor puddles of water, nor unexpected detours with a 20 foot drainage pipe, can stop the ruggedly capable telluride x-pro from getting you to your dinner reservation on time. okay! ♪ kia. movement that inspires (bridget) with thyroid eye disease i hid from the camera. and i wanted to hide from the world. for years, i thought my t.e.d. was beyond help... but then i asked my doctor about tepezza. (vo) tepezza is the only medicine that treats t.e.d. at the source not just the symptoms. in a clinical study more than 8 out of 10 patients taking tepezza had less eye bulging. tepezza is an infusion. patients taking tepezza may have infusion reactions.

tell your doctor right away if you experience high blood pressure, fast heartbeat, shortness of breath or muscle pain. before getting tepezza, tell your doctor if you have diabetes, ibd, or are pregnant, or planning to become pregnant. tepezza may raise blood sugar even if you don't have diabetes and may worsen ibd such as crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis. now, i'm ready to be seen again. visit mytepezza.com to find a ted eye specialist and to see bridget's before and after photos. the first time you connected your godaddy website

and your store was also the first time you realized... well, we can do anything. cheesecake cookies? the chookie! manage all your sales from one place with a partner that always puts you first. (we did it) start today at godaddy.com i'm orlando and i'm living with hiv. i don't have to worry about daily hiv pills because i switched to every-other-month cabenuva. for adults who are undetectable, cabenuva is the only complete long-acting hiv treatment you can get every other month. it's two injections from a healthcare provider. now when i have people over, hiv pills aren't on my mind. don't receive cabenuva if you're allergic to its ingredients, or if you're taking certain medicines, which may interact with cabenuva. serious side effects include allergic reactions, post-injection reactions, liver problems, and depression. if you have a rash and other allergic reaction symptoms, stop cabenuva and get medical help right away. tell your doctor if you have liver problems or mental health concerns, and if you are pregnant, breastfeeding, or considering pregnancy. some of the most common side effects include injection-site

reactions, fever, and tiredness. if you switch to cabenuva, attend all treatment appointments. it feels good to just live in the moment. with every-other-month cabenuva, i'm good to go. ask your doctor about cabenuva today. over the last year, the supreme court's conservative supermajority has overturned

decisions that have guided this country for decades. last year's ruling on abortion and now this week's decisions on affirmative action in college admissions, limiting lgbtq+ rights, dramatically changing how america is governed. our supreme court analyst is here now to discuss. big picture, what do you make of these conservative legal victories? it strikes me that the justices from the conservative majority, they feel empowered here to overturn a series of decisions that they know will have an enormous effect on this country and for millions of americans. >> jim, they definitely are empowered. the difference between a 5-4 court we had for many, many decades and a 6-3 court that we have now is so much more than a single vote. they do feel more empowered. you named several cases from last year and this term, but there have been others. restricting the environmental protection agency's power. last year around this time, it was similar to the themes we saw

in the student loan forgiveness case today. remember last year, they also enhanced second amendment gun rights, another favorite of conservative interests. so in case after case, we are seeing an empowered court rolling back precedent. you used -- you referred to the affirmative action case. the affirmative action case this week really undercut two major landmarks, 1978 and the 2003 university of michigan case that reinforced the idea that admissions officials can look at race as one factor. >> right. i watched the confirmation hearings for all these justices. they were all asked the automatic question about stare decisis. in effect, will you as the justice of the supreme court, respect precedent , in many of these cases it was repeated precedent, cases backing up

decisions, for instance, roe v. wade. were they lying or dislmisleadi? is precedent dead? >> no, it is a principle of the court, but they were asked the automatic question, then they gave an automatic answer. if you look at what, for example, brett kavanaugh has said on abortion rights, or i went back and looked at what chief justice john roberts had said about affirmative action, because he had been asked that during his confirmation hearings, and they always skate around the issue. talk about how they have regard for precedent, but they're not going to take it on. first, they might get confirmed, and, b, they don't want to lay down markers for future cases. >> like the roberts thing about balls and strikes, you know. >> right. >> but they are changing, they know they're changing. i wonder, when you look at the collection of the decisions here on abortion, lgbtq, gun rights, on the functioning of the epa, those aren't political issues, right? have they made the case as a

matter of law? >> well, it's in the eye of the beholder. >> yeah. >> they think they've made the cases as a matter of law, but earlier in your intro, jim, you referred to elena kagan's dissent. i was in the courtroom today when she dissented on the chief's decision on the student loan forgiveness. she said, you're reading the statute in your own terms. you're trying to amass power to the majority, to this court, and you're not interpreting it the way congress had written it. essentially, you're undercutting congress' power, you're undercutting the executive branch's power, and the person who wins there, or the group of people who win there is the su supermajority you're referring to. >> it is a kconsistency issue because they've said, well, this is for congress. here, you're ignoring congress, but it's a longer discussion. joan, thank you. you break it down so it is easy to understand. a former trump campaign

official is now cooperating with the special counsel in its investigation into 2020 election interference. we have details on that straight ahead.

[clicking] when occasional heartburn won't let you sleep. [clicking] get fast relief with new tums+ heartburn + sleep support. love food back and fall asleep faster.

♪tum, tum tum tum, tums♪

we're learning new details about the federal investigations against former president donald trump. sources tell cnn a former trump campaign official is now cooperating with jack smith's special counsel investigation into efforts to overturn the 2020 election. i want to bring in cnn's senior legal affairs correspondent paula reave. we're learning a campaign official has reached an agreement to cooperate and

that's jack ronan. >> that's exactly right. he reached an agreement to share what he knows with an expectation he'll not be prosecuted for anything that he share. so he's not going to have to go before the grand jury at this point, but he does have to answer questions specifically about the so-called fake electors plot, right, this effort to put forth a fake slate of electors to help overturn the election in favor of former president trump. and we know from our reporting this has really been a focus lately for investigators, and this is just part of a flurry of activity. you have this interview. you also have rudy giuliani sitting down with investigators, a real uptick we're seeing that would suggest charges could be coming. >> and that's just in the effort to overturn the 2020 election. we also have the classified documents probe where another trump campaign official has been speaking to investigators. >> that's right. one of the striking aspects of the indictment of former president trump was an allegation that a representative from his political action committee, that he had shown a map to this representative, and

that was striking not only because he was sharing classified information but this would have been someone in his inner circle. and it raised questions about whether this person may have given information to his investigators. susie wilds, one of his closest aides, she's effectively running his third run for the white house, and we've learned she was that pac representative, but what we don't know is whether she shared this information with investigators. we know she was interviewed multiple times and was asked about this. at this point it's unclear if this occurred because of what she said or through some other evidence. >> we've just been talking about the special counsel's probe. the current president and front-runner in race for the president, he's got some other cases looming. >> he sure does, as you can see here he's already been indicted by the manhattan district attorney, hush money scheme. we've seen one special counsel indictment so far. it's unclear on the january 6th side of the special counsel probe if former president trump

will face charges. he could be an unindicted coconspirator. it's just not clear. we know a lot of questions being asked of witnesses about him, what he say doing on january 6th, in the days leading up to january 6th and after. unclear if he'll be charged. we're also awaiting a decision in georgia. it does appear possible he'll be charged, but we'll wait for fani willis to make the announcement. >> and heez are just the criminal case. they don't mention the civil matters. >> i would be here all day. >> we appreciate you joining us for the time you were here. thank you so much. >> so we are keeping an eye on the white house. president biden will soon address today's major supreme court rulings. we'll be bringing that to you as soon as it happens. stay with us. are you tired of clean clothes that just don't smell clean? downy unstopables in-wash scent boosters

keep your laundry smelling fresh waaaay longer than detergent alone. if you want laundry to smell fresh for wee, make sure you have downy unstopables in-wash scent boosters. i'm jonathan lawson here to tell you about life insurance through the colonial penn program. if you're age 50 to 85, and looking to buy life insurance on a fixed budget, remember the three ps. what are the three ps? the three ps of life insurance on a fixed budget are price, price, and price. a price you can afford, a price that can't increase, and a price that fits your budget. i'm 54, what's my price? you can get coverage for $9.95 a month. i'm 65 and take medications. what's my price? also $9.95 a month. i just turned 80, what's my price? $9.95 a month for you too. if you're age 50 to 85, call now about the #1 most popular

whole life insurance plan available through the colonial penn program. it has an affordable rate starting at $9.95 a month. no medical exam, no health questions. your acceptance is guaranteed. and this plan has a guaranteed lifetime rate lock so your rate can never go up for any reason. so call now for free information and you'll also get this free beneficiary planner. and it's yours free just for calling. so call now for free information. sleep more deeply. and wake up rejuvenated. purple mattress's exclusive gelflex grid draws away heat, relieves pressure, and instantly adapts. sleep better, live purple. save up to $800 off mattress sets during purple's july 4th sale. visit purple.com or a store near you.