president biden today railing against two controversial supreme court decisions that came down this morning one of which nullified a key peace of his economic agenda. and here in a few minutes he's going to address the nation about steps he's taking in response. >> the one his administration has been prepping for all year, a 6-3 ruling that blocked the student debt forgiveness pg tod the 6-3 conservative majority want to provide services to same-sex couples, essentially ruling in favor of freedom of expression at the expense of lgbtq

protections. >> we're covering every angle of this story only the way cnn can. we also have cnn's jeremy diamond at the white house and melanie zanona an capitol hill. >> quite a busy week for you. walk us through first this student loan forgiveness plan of biden's being scrapped by the court's decision. >> absolutely right. the supreme court moves to block this student loan forgiveness plan. it was supposed to give relief to millions of borrowers up to $20,000 in the wake of covid. and biden says, look, if the program was necessary, he wanted it to give some people some breathing room so there wouldn't be delinquencies and defaults in the wake of covid. but these republican led states challenged it right away, and they said, look, he can't just

basically step in and try to erase billions of dollars of debt. he needs congressional authority to do that, and that is where the supreme court agreed. >> the court has shown enormous deference to congress, right? oftentimes in its decisions it says that should be a congressional responsibility or it's a state legislature responsibility. we saw that for instance on the dobbs case. in this case, though, i heard other folks interpret the law, the heroes act the decision was based on was as congress wrote the law and gave the president this authority. how do you understand how the court defines congress' role here and does it stand up? >> that's what justice kagen wrote. she said the court is in here and it's ignoring what the court has said. but this conservative court at times has been very skeptical of administrative agencies. they say, look, separation of powers. they are not accountable to the people, and they believe this

law was not meant to do what biden wanted to. it is this big fight, right, between the liberals and conservatives on the administrative state. and so far with this conservative leaning court with three of president trump's nominees the agency's power is being cut back. >> also a big fight between the conservatives and liberals on the issue of lgbtq rights. tell us about that decision. >> right, well that was a big loss. basically, they ruled in favor of this woman who says, look, i want to create websites to celebrate marriage, but i do want to create websites to celebrate same-sex marriages. she said that that violated her religious beliefs, but she also put it in terms of the first amendment. she said i don't want to create a custom product with a message that i don't believe in. and she absolutely won today at

the supreme court because justice neil gorsuch again for a 6-3 court said, look, this is on first amendment grounds. the government or colorado in this case can't basically force you, right, to give a message, create a custom product with a message that you disagree with. so that was really, again, closely divided opinion, a big win for her. >> jeremy diamond at the white house now. we have the president set to speak in just 30 minutes. this is a big day, a big day of defeat certainly for his agenda and his views. he's not happy, no doubt, about these decisions, but it seems perhaps he was prepared for them. >> reporter: yeah, no doubt about it. i mean, listen, this administration maintained publicly that they hoped the supreme court would uphold the president. they felt they were on solid legal ground, but behind the scenes officials were very much prepared for this outcome, which

was in fact viewed as the most likely outcome and the conservative supreme court would strike this down. i'm told the president this morning shortly after the decision came down he got all his senior aides together and met for hours in the office with those aides to finalize how the administration will respond. we're going to hear those steps from the president at some point this hour. the president made clear he thought this program would have been a lifeline for tens of millions of americans, but he made clear he's going to still continue to do what he can to provide that lifeline saying, quote, i believe the court's decision to strike down our student debt relief plan is wrong, but i'll stop at nothing to find other ways to deliver relief to hardworking middle class families. my administration will continue to work to bring the promise of higher education to every american. and the president today expect him to also outline other steps that his administration has taken to try and address this issue of college affordability. his administration has raised the maximum of pell grant, for

example. he's also forgiven student loans for public service employees, stricken debt from individuals who attended for-profit colleges. so he's fog to lean on those steps and he's also we're told going to announce some new ones. we don't know exactly what those will be, but again this impacts millions and millions of americans. 26 million people had applied for this program. the white house says they believe that as many as 40 million people would have been eligible for it. and again that moratorium on student loan payments also ends. those payments are going to come due in october, so this is a very urgent issue, and we'll hear from the president shortly. >> listen, you think how many millions of americans affected by the collection of these decisions, student loans affects 40 million americans, lgbtq rights, the decision on affirmative action i mean has genuine impact. these are not just cases decided in an ivory tower. for folks watching at home who may not be constitutional scholars help them understand

and perhaps me understand as well when you look at the affirmative action decision and the decision today on this web designer, why can schools not in effect discriminate if that's the right word based on racial background, but this web designer based on a freedom of expression argument can make a decision not to do business with someone or put out a message that they consider not in line with their views? >> right, so what the court is saying here in this case in the opinion authored by justice gorsuch is that the first amendment protects the right of individuals to not speak in a way that they don't want to, to not be compelled to speak by the state. colorado says you must, you know, take anybody who wants a website, they tried this earlier with a bait shop aif you recall, and you must serve that person and create a website. these websites according to the court in its view have significant creative expression in them. they're about celebrating things and the like, and as a result

the state can't compel the speech of this individual in this case. and so that's sort of the essential part of the holding. it goes back to a long line of cases involving the first amendment of compelled speech cases. can you force a student to say the pledge of allegiance, right? can the state require somebody to speak in a creative or verbal way, and in this court the court is saying the first amendment prohibits the state from forcing them to do that on penalty of being put in an educational program or facing other types of penalties, and that's the issue at least for the majority. now, as you know there's a strong dissent that lays out the other side, but that's what the majority at least are saying in this case. >> there are questions about how this might impact politics moving forward as we saw last year with the roe v. wade decision to overturn precedent there, democrats pounced on that as an issue for the mid-terms, and there are questions about how both parties might capitalize on these rulings. for reaction from capitol hill

let's go to melanie zanona. what are you hearing right now? >> reaction has been pouring in even though congress is on recess and responses are falling on party lines. republicans are thrilled with the outcome here. they're crediting former president trump with making these rulings possible and particularly pleased with the decision to block student loan forgiveness program by president joe biden. that is something republicans in congress have been fighting against. they've been trying to target it in a number of bills. but notably the gop has been been a lot less vocal on the other ruling which determined that a christian website designer can deny services to same-sex couples. both speaker kevin mccarthy and senate minority leader mitch mcconnell were quick to put out statements praising the student loan ruling, but they have yet to weigh in on the gay rights case, and that just really shows you how this is tricky issue

politically for republicans. over the next tickiedory so there's been a massive slift in support for gay marriage. you can see why republicans would be more reluctant to weigh in on that case. and in the meanwhile democrats are devastated and furious what transpired nis week. democrats now urging biden to come up a plan "b" for student loan forgiveness. they'veulse also been renewing their calls for reform and pack the supreme court. and chuck schumer has been particularly outspoken. he put out a statement saying the gay rights ruling was both bigoted and hateful and he put a broader statement expressing concern about the direction of the court. i want to read you part of that statement because it is pretty scathing. he wrote the fanatical maga right has captured the supreme court. this maga captured supreme court feels free to accept lavish gifts and vacations from their powerful big moneyed friends all while they refuse to help everyday americans. so we'll see how democrats try

to use this as a rallying cry in the next election, but it is clear that this final round of opinions from the supreme court bringing a massive disappointment for democrats while delivering a big victory for the right. >> melanie, thank you for that. obviously this is really going to factor in even republicans saying, hey, this might not work to our favor here. really interesting, laura, to point out that it is unclear, there are questions being raised about whether this case with the website was even built on a real request. really interesting questions being raised here. lori smith actually, she wasn't someone who was providing wedding websites. she is someone who said she didn't do that because she feared basically being punished for not providing them to same-sex couples so she preemptively files this lawsuit before actually expanding her business before she'd actually made a website for same-sex

couples. >> it appears i think one of the people named in that lawsuit there was actually a heterosexual man. >> who had no idea. >> who had no idea and ended up finding out later and said, no, i'm married to a woman. >> i didn't file this request for a website. >> right, i didn't file this at all. that was stunning to find out. in the white house's response to this they're really trying to frame it as part of this larger movement. in the president's statement he said he's concerned it's going to invite more discrimination against lgbtq americans and framing it as part of this larger movement or growing movement that we're seeing on the right to restrict lgbtq rights across a number of states. >> sorry, i didn't mean to inte interrupt. i was saying it's such a good point because there are many laws working their way with it seems the express intent of trying to whittle down, right, some of these protections here. is that -- are we going to see

more cases like this going forward? >> well, the bigger picture here is not so much these protections but is there going to be a sentiment to whittle away that landmark opinion that cleared the way for gay marriage nationwide? and that is the fear here. that is why they're worried about this particular court. >> when clarence thomas, justice thomas did mention as well as the contraception ruling, and those are things the president has also tried to seize on when they handed down the dobbs decision is when clarence thomas mentioned those. and the president's tried to seize on that and is going to continue to talk about this overall level of privacy that he says is being infringed upon. >> it's such a great point. as you look in those decisions for other cases they mention as a possible sentence for next time around. >> and part of thestition is the precedent this sets particularly the ones on lgbtq rights, and we've been speaking to different advocates of that community

including the president of glaad earlier that this is part of a campaign to erode the rights of same-sex couples. from your perspective is that the case? is this a discriminatory campaign? >> look, obviously there's things going on in a variety of states where there are efforts to restrict rights of certain couples of certain classes of people. those are obviously problematic and will face their own challenges from a constitutional perspective in the courts and face their own challenges politically in the states in which those things are being considered. this case really at least as the courts framed it less about an individual's right and more about the first amendment and the question about can the state compel somebody to speak, right orb on the ground of equal protections and say, well, people have a right to have access to that website and that website is created. can you force a content creator to convey a message they don't agree with? and what the court said here is this was a fourth amendment case, this is not about

discrimination but about the first amendment. and justice sotomayor said, though, this case is about discrimination. it's about epeople having access to the services and they should be able to get it regardless of what their background is, regardless of what their gender identity is and the like. in a lot of the ways it's framing the question is this a first amendment question, the right of the content creator to speak, or is this about discrimination and the inability of these individuals of lesbian, gay, transgender people to get services from a person who generally puts their services out for public consumption. >> laura, how much do you see this court changing the way americans live their lives? and are they representative of america and what america wants? >> well, significantly we've already seen the ramifications of the fall of dobbs, and we're going to see from these other decisions. but poll after poll shows that,

no, they aren't representative of what the general public is. a recent nprpbs maris poll found 60% of americans spirit. and 57% of americanss oppose weakening of nondiscrimination protections. >> it is quite the contrast. thank you so much to all of you. such a big day, so important to have all of your voices here. coming up minutes from now we'll be hear from president biden after these two landmark supreme court decisions today. one rejecting, of course, biden's own student loan forgiveness program, the other limiting the rights of lgbtq americans in the name of freedom of speech. we'll be right back with that. ...or blasting the air conditioning. because the e tempur-breeze feels up to 10° cooler, all ninight long. for a limited time, save $500 on all-new tempur-breeze

mattresses.

♪ limu emu & doug ♪ what do we always say, son? liberty mutual customizes your car insurance... so you only pay for what you need. that's my boy. now you get out there, and you make us proud, huh? ♪ bye, uncle limu. ♪ stay off the freeways! only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

in just minutes president biden will address on the nation on the next steps his administration is going to take following the supreme court's decision to reverse his student loan program. joining us now is nutallia abrams, president of the student debt crisis center. nutallia, thank you for being with us. i understand your organization just held an emergency town hall. what's the reaction you're hearing from your members today? >> absolute just disappointment. terrified, disappointed, disgusted, and i echo their feelings. we had rachg leana on who just burst into tears terrified how she's going to make payments. i'm glad we were able to give folks that space, but we can only do so much. the president needs to act. >> what would you like the white house to do? we've spoken to experts to say his options on executive action are limited.

>> they limited, sure, but we know the president can use the higher education authorization and he can use many other tools. this was one tool in the toolbox, and he made a promise to the american people to 43 million student loan borrowers that he would cancel student debt, and he needs to upheld that promise. >> of course there's a lot of different angles at play here. it's not just the president who has to make that decision, but supreme court specifically said that congress has to weigh in on this issue. i wonder what your message is to lawmakers on capitol hill who oppose forgiving student loan debt. >> well, congress already gave the president the authority through the higher education authorization to cancel student debt. you know, for people that oppose this i don't understand why we continue to oppose american people that are just trying to make ends meet, to get ahead in life by getting an education. you know, our affirmative action brothers and sisters that have

worked so hard on this issue we've seen this with affirmative action, we've seen this with lgbtq. i mean we're not alone in feeling this, and gop lawmakers need to take note their harming every day american people they claim to protect. >> i'm also curious what you would say to borrowers who are now caught in this difficult legal back and forth and maybe had hope that this would lead to their debt being forgiven. >> for student loan borrowers out there we understand today you need to take grace. i'm just going to steal from president obama after the, you know, the 2016 election, today take grace, take time for yourself. but tomorrow we get up and we fight and we continue to get relief out of this white house, out of congress wherever we can find because borrowers have been suffering for way too long. this has been a crisis before the pandemic and going to balloon. we're on the precipice of $2

trillion. something has to be done now. >> what would you say to critics who argue simply forgiving student loan debt would not address the deeper issues that you're talking about, the overall cost of higher education that has ballooned now for decades? >> you know, they're not wrong. we can agree that we have to do something about the cost of higher education. that is absolutely one of the major prongs in ending the student debt crisis. we need to take down the cost of college and have debt-free college. but we also have to understand student loan borrowers have been in this system for 20, 25 years. we might not be able to do it all at once, but be have to do it all. >> natalia abrams, thank you for sharing your point of view with us. >> thank you, boris. appreciate it. >> now on the other side of the student loan debt forgiveness debate here arkansas attorney general tim griffon with us now. arkansas one of six plaintiff states the supreme court ruled in favor of in this case.

sir, thank you for being with us to talk about this. 220,000 people from your state applied to this student loan debt relief program. what do you say to them in the wake of this decision? >> well, first of all, i say that i'm not just here as an elected official. i personally had over $100,000 in my own student loans, and i just finished paying them off in my 40s after years. so i understand this intimately. this for me is not about policy. this is not a discussion of whether we should or should not forgive loans. that's where people get confused. this is about the law. the simple question was not should we forgive the loans. the simple question was and continues to be does the

president have the unilateral authority under the hers act to forgive the student debt? that's the question that was presented. and that's the question that we got an answer to. i used to be a member of congress. congress is where the laws are made. and in this case we have a law -- have a law, the heroes act, and what the administration, what the president did was not under -- is not allowed under the heroes act. if congress today with the president wanted to do this, they could do it. when the democrats controlled all of congress and the white house they could have done it. there's a way to do this, but there's a right way and there's an illegal way. and what we heard today is this attempt to cancel debt does not

constitute a modification or a waiver, which is allowed ined the heroes act. this is wholesale change which just can't -- there's no good argument to be made under the heroes act that this is legal. >> well, let me ask you -- part of the debate there is question of whether maybe not, you know, maybe before the court but as part of this broad debate on student loan forgiveness there is a question about whether shised the be forgiven, and there have been many republicans who say, look, this was a pay out to the constituency that democrats were doing, and there was opposition as you know within your party because of that. i mean knowing that this will animate potentially democrats, are you prepared for the political blowback of what this will bring? >> i'm prepared to do what's right under the law, and whatever political blowback

comes or doesn't come is really not the issue for me because i'm the attorney general. >> okay, so then let's talk about -- and i respect that, sir. >> i'm going to -- i want to address your question directly, briana. i want to address it directly because i also think it's a bad idea on policy. my point is not to avoid saying that. my point is to clarify the discussion. this supreme court decision is about the law. now, we can have a policy decision, which i'm happy to engage in. and i think it's a horrible idea to do this. why? because i took out loans, many, many loans for law school, for grad school, for undergrad, and you know what? it took me decades to pay them. and i paid them myself. and i believed when i finished paying them that i'm done.

i want -- and a lot of americans who paid their loans or are paying their loans don't want to think just when you finished paying their loans off think, no you weren't because now you've got to pay someone else's loans off. i don't know where individual responsibility went, but, yeah, i think it's a bad idea. but i want to be clear that's not what the supreme court decision is about. >> well, i understand that. let's talk -- i understand but it's all part of the conversation here. let's talk about the law. this case opens the door to more ringing in of that so-called administrative state as it was put in the majority opinion here. what other programs do you see the precedent here, right, the standard set in this ruling to effect? are we talking about potentially medicare, social security? what do you think? >> well, look, we have a number

of lawsuits against the administration that relate to executive orders, that relate to regulations coming out of the different agencies, and i'm not going to comment specifically on them, but you make a good point. this does continue to draw a clear line reining in the administrative state. as someone who's worked in washington, who's held these different roles, the administrative state has been way out of control for a long time, and they've been acting in an extra constitutional way. and look, the stuff they do can be done, but it must be done by the elected officials in the united states congress. the fact they won't do it is not a good legal reason to do it on your own. we saw this when i was a member

of congress with president obama. there were a number of instances where his lawyers had said in the past we can't do this legally. but when they were forwarded in the congress they said, well, let's try anyway. that is corrosive to the rule of law. and if people want to apply pressure to their elected representatives to get "a," "b," "c" or "d" passed, go do it. there's a proper process. process matters. we saw this with some of the mask rules. we've seen it with osha, so i'm all for that discussion -- >> point taken. there's a policy discussion, there's a legal discussion. i will say it is a bipartisan practice of seeing how far that executive authority goes, which i know that you are certainly well aware of from your time in washington. attorney general tim griffon,

thank you for being with us. we appreciate it. >> thank you, briana. >> jim? >> we are waiting to hear from the president any moment now on the supreme court's decision to block that loan forgiveness program and also limit lgbtq rights. we're going to bring you that live. and the state department just released a damning report about president biden's withdrawal from afghanistan back in 2021. new details about what led specifically to the death of those 13 u.s. service members. helping businesses both large and small, communities and the people who live and work there grow and thrive. we're proud to call thesese places home too. they're where we put down roots, and where together, we work to help move naia goals forward. pnc bank. ♪ hit it ♪ ♪ 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... ♪ stay two nights and get a $ 50 best western gift card. book now at beststern.com.

your shipping manager left to “find themself.” leaving you lost. you need to hire. i need indeed. indeed you do. indeed instant match instantly delivers quality candidates matching your job description. visit indeed.com/hire

this just in and it's notable. the state department has released a report on its investigation into the u.s. withdrawal from afghanistan, the findings are damning. it's a 28-point report here. our kiley atwood has been going through it. a few things stand out to me and i'm sure stand out to you. one, insufficient level of consideration for worst case scenarios. it notes some officials questioned the decision making leading up to this. it notes handing over bagram air base basically funneled everybody trying to leave the country to the international airport, listing throughout a number of failures in the

preparation. >> yeah, it's a really damning report, jim. and i think it's important to note to folks that it covers the time period of january of 2020 when president trump was in office and there was that agreement struck between the u.s. and the taliban which really paved the way for the united states to repair withdrawing from the country and covers through august 2021, which is when thg out the actual withdrawal itself. there is as you actually noted that one finding that is at the top of these findings that really crystallizes what the report gets into and says, quote, there were decisions beyond the scope of this review, but the team found during both administrations, the biden administration and the trump administration, there was insufficient senior level consideration of worst-case scenarios and how quickly those might follow. what's clear as you read through

this report there wasn't great organization or delineation of responsibility in this building at the state department. one of the things that they point out is that there wasn't someone on the seventh floor here in the building dealing with crisis management for this. and the seventh floor is where the secretary of state sits. there also wasn't a task force that was setup early enough to bring folks to the table to discuss what could be these crisis scenarios they would face as they were preparing for withdrawal. when idea the pentagon saying for that non-combatant evacuation option there wasn't a person at the state department coordinating with that pentagon effort and so that created confusion as well according to this report. so there's quite a few things the department didn't do this report gets into that are significant and also makes recommendations for how this department can better prepare for crises going forward like getting the operation center

here at the department up and running fully staffed, so it can really be the central focal point for where that crisis management lies. >> what does it say if anything about the abbey-gate attack. in the final days there were 13 u.s. service members and let's not forget 170 afghans who were there waiting trying to escape and they were killed in that terrorist attack at the airport. >> what the report says is that situation displays how dangerous the situation actually was on the ground. what it doesn't do is dig into any decisions that were made in this department that could have potentially prevented that terrorist attack, as you said killing 13 american service members and more than 150 afghans. anything that this department could have done to prevent that from occurring. i think you'll hear folks in this building probably point the finger at the intelligence community or at the department

of defense regarding decision making surrounding that. but it does paint the picture of a very, very tenuous situation at the airport, which of course created that environment that allowed that isis attack to happen. >> we also should note the timing of the release of this report is significant. it's a friday afternoon before a long holiday weekend. kiley, what are your sources in the state department saying about the findings of this report? >> reporter: well, listen, this is something that i've pressed state department officials on when we had a call on this earlier today because it's lost on no one that this report not only is rolled out on a friday before a holiday weekend, but it's also being rolled out more than a year after the report itself was concluded. so they've, you know, waited more than a year to rollout these findings. they're waiting until a friday before fourth of july. what the senior state department

official said on that call is that they weren't going to get into process-related questions. but clearly folks in this building see that timing and they're concerned about them trying to, you know, really hide the fact that the department doesn't want all of its failures with this withdrawal really dragged through washington and setup at a moment when congress is in session, they might face more criticism. >> we should also note special immigrant visas has been an issue and also a continuing one because there are many afghans who served bravely alongside u.s. forces who are still there. it addressed there was a backlog prior they've made an effort to accelerate the process, but the fact is here we are two years later and there's still many people left behind. >> many. >> it is still an ongoing issue. kiley atwood thank you so much for walking us through the details of the scathing report. stay with cnn, because we're standing by for the president to speak from the white house at any moment after two major

decisions from the supreme court today, one of them overturning his effort to forgive student loans. we're going to bring you his remarks live.

i've always had trouble falling asleep and staying asleep— you know, insomnia. but then i found quviviq, an fda-approved medication for adults with insomnia. and i'm glad i found it. you wouldn't believe some of the things people suggested to help me sleep. nature sounds? ahh, no thanks. my friend's white-noise idea. nope. and i'm not counting sheep. not on the... carpet. insomnia can impact both my days and my nights. so i know how important a good night's sleep is. that's why i take quviviq nightly. maybe i should tell them how it works, taye? quviviq works differently than medications you may have taken in the past. it's thought to target one of the biological causes of insomnia: overactive wake signals. and when taken every night, studies showed sleep continued to improve over time. do not take quviviq if you have narcolepsy.

don't drink alcohol while taking quviviq or drive or operate heavy machinery until you feel fully alert. quviviq may cause temporary inability to move or talk or hallucinations while falling asleep or waking up. quviviq may cause sleepiness during the day. quviviq may lead to doing activities while not fully awake that you don't remember the next day, like walking, driving and making or eating food. worsening depression, including suicidal thoughts, may occur. most common side effects are headaches and sleepiness. it's quviviq. ask your doctor if it's right for you. ♪ ♪

what do we always say, son? liberty mutual customizes your car insurance... so you only pay for what you need. that's my boy. ♪ stay off the freeways! only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ we are following huge ripples coming from these two major supreme court decisions released today. in one of those rulings the court sided with a colorado website designer who is a christian who didn't want to work with same-sex couples. this is a decision that

effectively limits lgbtq rights. and democratic governor jarod pollis who himself is gay called it misguided. he went onto say in a statement, quote, these rulings run counter to colorado values and we'll continue to fight against bigotry and discrimination in all their ugly forms. joining us now cnn senior political correspondent abby philip. now the court has made this ruling here and we're looking to the future where does anti-discrimination legislation go from here? >> i think this is going to be the big question because the court in this ruling has now opened the door to people in all kinds of lines of work that could be seen as expressive or creative potential saying to prospective clients my beliefs do not align with yours and i do not want to endorse your beliefs by expressing myself in a way that will provide you with service. where does that end, right? are we talking about wedding

deejays or people making invitations for people who are having a same sex marriage? i think these are really big questions that are not just for colorado, not just in this case of a web designer but for states all across the country that have these anti-discrimination laws designed to afford lgbtq individuals the same access to goods and services as everyone else, and that's really at the heart of this decision here. and at 4:00 on "the lead" we're going to be talking to the colorado attorney general, phil wiser, about this very issue and find out how they might be thinking about adjusting colorado's existing law to try to accommodate this ruling from the supreme court. >> as you're looking at this, does it make it more clear where that line is between product and speech, or does it raise more questions about where that line is? >> i do think it raises more

questions because the way they crafted this deafination of this web designer's speech, she's making up a spoke website that would in describing the union between these same-sex couples be a tacit endorsement of same-sex marriage. i think that is really kind of splitting hairs, one would argue. and there are all kinds of things that same-sex couples or let's say call it interracial couples. if you're an interracial couple and someone's religious beliefs don't align with interracial marriage, could that person discriminate against an interracial couple? i think it raises -- those are questions that do not close the door to more litigation. in fact, i think this opens the flood gates here. the groups that bring these cases in some ways that's what they're going for. they want to reopen these questions in public life so that the court, a very conservative court can relitigate them. >> the lawyer of the website designer was on earlier talking

to boris, and she said that's a reprehensible view of someone objecting, but that's not the point here. >> she may think that's a reprehensible view, but if you just super impose that upon this ruling, if someone were to say that is my religious belief, and this is a form of speech, i don't see how the court does not respect that under the way this ruling is written. >> such an interesting point. abby philip, thank you so much. and much more on today's supreme court decision of course ahead with you on "the lead" the to the top of the hour. and for our viewers stay with us, president biden is going to be speaking any moment. obviously a very busy day with these court decisions. he's going to be addressing the cameras from the white house on all of this. this is cnn news central.

♪ tourists tourists that turn into scientists. tourist taking photos that are analyzed by ai. so researchers can help life underwater flourish. ♪ the all-new tempur-pedic breeze makes sleep feel cool.

so, no more sweating all night... ...or blasting the air conditioning. because the tempur-breeze feels up to 10° cooler, all night long. for a limited time, save $500 on all-new tempur-breeze mattresses. 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.

what do we always say, son? liberty mutual customizes your car insurance... so you only pay for what you need. that's my boy. ♪ stay off the freeways! only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

france is now bracing for a fourth night of violent protests across the country. all large-scale events have been banned today in response to three nights of growing unrest over the shooting death of a 17-year-old boy by police on tuesday. nearly 900 people were arrested during the protest last night alone. vehicles were set on fire, some businesses were looted as well. public transportation right now including buses and tramways have been shutdown. let's take you to the streets of paris now with cnn's melissa bell. melissa, what are you seeing there? >> reporter: well, what we've seen the last couple of nights last night we're seeing again tonight is that violence, that unrest. and we've seen really on the periphery of france's big cities in the suburbs move to the centers. some protesters come here to make their anger known, and this

large police presence is what you're going to see all over the streets of france tonight. it is 45,000 police men and women that have been deployed, 5,000 more than last night. and what the interior ministry announced they're deploying armored vehicles, helicopters, mobile units to try to get to the end of this violence. from the point of view of the protesters, there is no sign of that happening anytime soon. in fact, boris, tomorrow will be held a funeral for the young 17-year-old who was killed by a policeman tuesday morning. that is expected to attract large crowds and there will be protests tomorrow in the heart of paris on the champs-elysees to show people are angry first at the events of tuesday morning of the police brutality they believe has been a long-standing issue and not sufficiently addressed but also the questions of the systemic racism that many in this country believe have underpinned those kind of incidents over the last few

years. so from the point of view of the government very heavy-handed tactics to get to the bottom of this even though they say there's no need for a state of emergency yet, they're really pulling out everything they can to try and restore order. for the time being, though, boris, there is no sense of the anger letting up. >> very powerful pictures that we are showing as you were sharing an update from there. melissa bell in paris, thank you so much for the reporting. >> and we are waiting right now to hear from the president. obviously a key day when the comes to these two supreme court decisions, but in particular to the president he's going to be announcing new acs on student debt. his student loan forgiveness program eviscerated by the supreme court and a statement out from the white house from the president where he's saying i believe the court's decision to strike down our student debt relief plan is wrong, but i will stop at nothing to deliver relief to hardworking middle class families. my administration will continue

to work to bring the promise of higher education to every american. for now, thou, this is going to cost many millions of people as they were hoping that it wouldn't, and that's going to have big political implications for this coming year. >> it's not clear he has really the ability to replace the effect of what this broader loan forgiveness program would have been able to accomplish. so it'll be interesting to watch what he lays out here. >> yeah. as we take a look at the roosevelt room, a live picture of the podium at the white house right now. and we have to acknowledge this is a presidency that's now faced several actions by the supreme court that are directly and diameticly opposed to the president's world view. >> yeah, and we will be looking for that as we wait on the president. "the lead" starts righ