of the groups that are being arrested, 1-third of them are youth that are out on the streets protesting. bill. >> bill: president macron might want to find time to get things under control and save the concerts for later. alex hogan live in london. thank you. >> dana: fox news alert. moments away from learning the supreme court's decision. welcome to a new hour of "america's newsroom." bill hemmer off today. i'm glad you're here with me for another hour of breaking news. >> bill: major news with the supreme court. millions of americans are waiting to find out what the court has to say on this about president biden's plan to wipe away $4 hundred billion in student loan debt. two related cases are challenging the president's authority to forgive the loans and there are several possible outcomes besides just an up or down ruling. >> dana: a lot of questions out there. we're answering them now as we

await today's opinion. shannon bream is standing by outside the court. hi, shannon. >> this is it, dana and bill. we're down to the wire. we know the student loan cases are coming today and know the case on the colorado web designer the free speech issue is coming today as well. the question continues to be does it punted get to an issue of standing. they talked about whether these parties, the group of states, red states that brought the case and borrowers who brought a separate case that they joined together at the court, do they either one of them have the right legal posture to be the ones to have the case heard? it was a lot of doubt. not just the left leaning justices. do they get to the merits of the case? i feel like because they've held it to the last day my gut says they should have gotten to the merits. they've taken a long time. we would expect they do. we'll know within moments. the first case it looks like that we have is the colorado web

designer. the web designer who said she is an artist and doesn't want to do custom web designs that doesn't agree with her religious belief. the first amendment bars colorado from forcing this website designer to create designs speaking messages with which she disagrees. sotomayor is dissenting. kagan and jackson joined her as well. i don't have the hard copy just yet. a 6-3 decision in favor of the web designer here. you remember the case with the baker out of colorado a few years didn't settle these issues. this came as a free speech issue. it looks like what the court has decided is that she can't be forced to speak messages she doesn't want to in her designs. this is that intersection of religious liberty, free speech along with the anti-discrimination protections for the lgbtq plus community.

she will serve anyone and has had lgbtq plus customers but doesn't want to do custom artistic designs to do something against her religious belief. in this case same-sex marriage. sarah, thank you very much. let me just check the run down on this. authored by gorsuch joined by roberts, thomas, alito, kavanaugh and barrett. the first one that we were waiting on let me flip through here as justice gorsuch who wrote other cases that have to deal with religious liberty issues. this is a free speech issue. here is what he says at the end of his decision. tolerance, no coercion is our nation's answer. the first amendment envisions the united states as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish. not as the government demands. colorado seeks to deny that process the judgment is reversed. 6-3 in favor of the web designer as we wait to see will they read

some from the bench that would delay us getting the student loan decision. they're up next. >> dana: i know this is one of your favorite days of the year. >> it is. >> dana: jonathan turley is a fox news contributor. as shannon just said, a lot of people remember the cake designer case. a lot of people would remember oh, that got settled in favor of the guy. as she said, it actually didn't answer all of the questions. so now that we have this ruling from the supreme court at 6-3, does this answer the questions? does it give us finality on what the decision is of the supreme court? >> it does. this is a momentous victory for free speech. i've been following this case since it was from the 10th circuit and the 10th circuit gave a full endorsement of the right of this colorado commission to force this website designer not only to take these

contracts, but also to take down statements on her own website about her religious beliefs. justice gorsuch has said that is all unconstitutional. i cannot express how important this case is for the first amendment. for years many of us have argued that the court was approaching these cases wrongly. in the masterpiece cake shop case you referred to, the court took an exit ramp and threw him back to this commission and that guy languished there for years trying to defend his religious rights. many of us have argued these cases should not be religion clause cases but free speech cases. what happened here is that the court could have considered both issues, but refused the religion clause claim and said they were only going to look at free speech. this is why. because gorsuch is saying that we've always been clear you can't coerce people to say

things. and what is being done here is telling a website designer you have to say things through your website designs that you believe are wrong. and gorsuch is saying that's not allowed under the first amendment. >> bill: go ahead and stand by. send it to shannon bream at the supreme court. i understand you have got the dissenting opinion here. go ahead. >> read a little bit from justice sotomayor, kagan and -- this is >> the supreme court declares a particular kind of business open to the public has a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class, the court does so for the first time in its history. again, the plaintiff in this case wanted to say she has served customers of all different backgrounds and sexualities and genders and she says essentially i'm happy to serve anybody and worked with all kinds of clients. i don't want to do custom

messages for events and certain things in conflict with my religious convictions. clearly justice sotomayor sees it differently than the majority did. this is about compelling free speech to be something the government wants it to be not what somebody personally believes. this business owner said she will serve all people. justice sotomayor has a fear this decision will be used to say something totally different. so pretty clear 6-3 split. it appears that there is some reading there the bench going on now. we don't have the student loan case which we'll get any second. >> dana: thank you so much on that one. we await the student loan decision as well. we'll let you continue to read through it and get back to jonathan turley here. what about somebody watching this who would say that doesn't make sense, no matter what sort of gender you claim you are or what your sexuality is, if you go into a grocery store and you want to buy something, you just go ahead and buy it and they have to serve you.

explain the distinction of this free speech issue about the custom part of this cake -- website design, excuse me. >> that's a critical distinction. these cases, masterpiece cake shop and 303 creative do not change the public accommodation laws. you cannot be refused to go into stores and buy items that are pre-made, for example, based on your race or status. in fact, the masterpiece cake shop the owner said no, we don't discriminate against anyone. just when you ask me to make a cake that expresses the celebration of a same-sex marriage that it really confronts the religious views that i have. and i don't want to do that. so what the court is saying here is that with these types of creative products, it is speech. and for those of us in the free

speech community this is one of the most important free speech cases in the history of the court and one of the most important cases gorsuch has ever handed down in my view. it is a huge victory because it brings clarity to an area that was muddled and confused. the court is making a very strong statement in favor of free speech. i'm mystified by the dissent. when sotomayor came up for confirmation she had a troubling free speech case as an appellate judge. that isn't as pronounced until today. her dissent gives very little weight to the free speech concerns raised by many of us about these issues. in my view, the reason it's a free speech case is because i would feel the same way about nazis going into a bakery and asking a jewish baker to produce an anti-semitic cake or to ask an african-american baker to

produce a kkk cake. various people have strong feelings that they don't want to be forced to express counter values. doesn't mean they're right or wrong, but we have the ability to accommodate that. what gorsuch says, a beautifully written opinion, he says we can accommodate that in this country. that we believe in pluralism and letting people have their own values. so the distinction you drew is the most important of all. you must comply with public accommodation laws. this is a limitation of when you ask someone to do an expressive act in the form of a cake, a website, maybe a photographer. >> bill: so this is another 6-3 decision with the conservative majority. yesterday president biden was very critical of the court in its decision. here is some of what he had to say. >> president biden: i strongly, strongly disagree with the court's decision. this is not normal. what i meant by that is it's

done more to unravel basic rights and basic decisions than any court in recent history. take a look at roe v. wade and the decision today and how it has ruled on a number of issues that are -- have been precedent for 50, 60 years sometimes. and that's what i meant by it. not normal. >> bill: you hear him he says it is not a normal court. he have is criticizing the court. he wasn't criticizing it when they recently sided with him in several decisions. >> this court has handed down major victories for his administration. it has not been rigidly divided. most of the cases are still unanimous, nearly unanimous. the ones that aren't have a mix that don't break along ideological lines. it is really these few cases, the cases like 303 creative where you see that strong division. but that's because of these deep seeded views. i wrote a column about the

president's comments last night. i thought they were very troubling. first of all, he cites -- he calls it the constitution but cites to the declaration of independence that somehow yesterday's decision counteracted the promise that we would treat everyone equally. that's a rather curious take because what the court thought it was doing was precisely that. the court said you need to look at people as individuals. you can't just check off boxes. and just as we don't allow racial discrimination in employment, we won't allow it in higher education. you can disagree with that. but to say as the president did this reverses the ground gained in the civil war is just really beyond the pale in my view. >> dana: stand by. we want to bring in a senior fellow and director of constitutional studies at the manhattan institute. i should be able to say the constitution. great to have you here with us

today. jonathan turley is making the case it's a momentous case for freedom of speech. >> it is a big case. i filed a brief supporting the challenger to the colorado law at the outset. this is a speech case. this is where the big difference between the majority and dissent is. justice sotomayor tries to paint it as regulating conduct and commercial action. but this is about speech. there is no debate here about whether cake baking or floristry is expressive. this is a free speech case. at the bottom it says the state cannot force you to speak its preferred messages. it is not a monopoly situation, either. not the case that this is the only graphic designer in the entire country or colorado who can provide these services. in fact, the court below the 10th circuit did call it a monopoly of one. she is lorie smith, the owner of

303 creative the only one who can provide her own unique services. that's bizarre. it does complete the loop that was opened by masterpiece cake shop. there can be fights about whether something is expressive or not. once an activity commercial or otherwise is expressive, the state cannot compel any kind of speech or expression. that's a big deal. >> bill: i don't know if you were listening with jonathan turley but he said he was mystified by the dissenting opinion here. what did you think about the dissent? >> well, in the what, ten minutes i've had a zrol through it, i think it is wrong and mischaracterizes the facts. it claims this is the same thing as denying service at restaurants to african-american travelers in the south during the jim crow era, which is just not the case at all. i don't know if i'm mystified. i would have expected this sort of thing because it is a different worldview about how some progressive legal theories

view the freedom of speech. the relationship of anti-discrimination law on private actors, private businesses, and individuals. but again, this is a speech case. this is not even a religion case. certainly not a mere regulation of commercial activity. >> dana: we had one of those yesterday as well on religion. if you could stand by. shannon bream is live for us. >> what we saw yesterday, the majority and dissent opinions going back and forth. we have a lot of that here today between gorsuch and sotomayor. gorsuch said this. it is difficult to read the case and conclude we are looking at the same case. he says they get into all kinds of different hype that calls what is going on and says the dissent gets turned around on itself firing on its own position. while stressing that a colorado company cannot refuse the full and equal enjoyment on his services the dissent says a

company selling create ifb services does have a right to decide what messages to include or not to include. if that's true, what are we even debating? they get into a number of things not the facts in the case. the facts of the case were stipulated and what the designer was alleging. by getting into other hypotheticals, they are looking at a case not before the court. at the end of the day the question has to be is the dissent okay with forcing people to compelling them to take part in speech the government wants them to do or has decided is the right speech? so a lot of back and forth, which is why justice sotomayor is reading her dissent from the bench. the heated cases the justices want to put it in writing but want to voice from the bench why they feel how they feel in these difficult decisions. when justice sotomayor wraps up reading her opinion we'll get the student loan case. >> bill: stand by. we have jonathan turley and want to ask him quick.

you heard shannon read that justice gorsuch writes the dissent fired on its own position here. what does he mean by that? >> well, i think that part of the problem with what you can see in justice sotomayor's dissent is it sweeps so broadly and treats this case as a virtual denial of public accommodation. the subject i talked about with dana. it doesn't do that. what this case is about is expressive acts, creative acts that can apply to photographers and bakers and website creators. those are people who are creating something for specific celebration that they find morally or politically or socially wrong. some reason to oppose it. this is about free speech, not -- this is not a religion clause case. so the dissent really sweeps quite broadly in saying this

undoes decades of law. i don't think it does. this has been long an uncertain and unresolved question for the court. i think it has gotten that question and answered it right today. i thought they should have done that with masterpiece cake shop. but they clearly now have the coalescing of majority to bring clarity here. clarity is really what this term is all about. you know, with the decision on affirmative action, people talk about cases going back decades. those cases are 5-4 decisions and all over the place. there was no clarity there. we now have clarity. chief justice roberts said we don't believe that you can fight racial discrimination by discriminating on the basis of race and that's the view of the court. today they brought clarity as well to a long uncertain question. they said this is free speech. and yes, we believe in public

accommodation and we believe in anti-discrimination laws but we also believe that we're a nation of tolerance for different values and views. and we can have that while protecting public accommodation laws. >> dana: stand by, jonathan. i want to bring back ilya. i grew up in colorado. interesting to me that these cases, the masterpiece cake case, this case all coming out of the state where i grew up. and i'm wondering about somebody like a lorie smith, the plaintiff in the case. what do they go through trying to stand up for themselves and all of a sudden they find themselves at the supreme court? where you have a 6-3 decision and you have people with distinguished legal pedigrees like yourself and jonathan turley saying it is a huge decision. what do people like her go through? >> well, it's tough. i think her business is on hold

pending the resolution of this case, hopefully she can go forward. jack phillips, the owner of masterpiece cake shop is persecuted even though he won that case by a showing of animus, anti-religious animus by the officials. they didn't come looking for a fight. it came to them. again, this is so different than the civil rights era cases where if you were denied or traditional public accommodations in old england pre-revolution, if you on a public road, if you didn't have a place to stay at the inn you didn't have any other place for 100 miles around. this is not that sort of extreme situation. this is about speech. i am gratified it is justice gorsuch writing it. he is probably the most libertarian justice and gets the difference between state and private action. i filed a brief. i'm 1 of 3 lawyers in the country who supported the marriage challenges and jack

phillips and now lorie smith in these private business challenges. what the government -- the duties that a government owes its citizens are different than what proverb at individuals do when you talk about the first amendment especially. having a government try to put thoughts and words into people's mouths, or just not have a business, not be able to make a living, that is a dangerous thing. >> dana: ilya, neil gorsuch from colorado as well. he followed this case for a long time. >> something in the air or altitude i guess. >> dana: you mentioned the gay marriage case. yesterday on "the view", i can't remember which one of the ladies from "the view" said what's next, gay marriage? can you answer that as if the court will -- >> i can't see that happening. for reasons both theoretical, practical and political.

in the abortion case, justice alito's majority opinion said it's very different. abortion at a certain point, a second life and being. whether it's first or second or try mister. gay marriage is consenting adults. practically there is the country has shifted. majorities in each state support same-sex marriage. a lot of reliance interests. people's marriages and kids and families are already made and obligated and so forth. these are all very different cases. for affirmative action this is government or large institutions that get federal funding being required to treat people equally. if anything yesterday's affirmative action decision is very in parallel with the requirement that if a state gives a marriage license to one type of couple it has to give it to another. >> bill: stand by for us.

i believe we have leo terrell joining us. you were reading this decision, 6-3 in favor of free speech. your initial thoughts. >> well, i've been a civil rights attorney. thanks for having me. 30 years. fantastic ruling. i think people will try to misconstrue it because they will accuse companies having the right to discriminate. this is not an accommodation issue, it's free speech first amendment and a specific request to a specific individual. the court said by a 6-3 majority that this is a first amendment issue and i think that's very important to get that message out. it has nothing to do with discriminating against people regarding accommodation like hotels, airplanes, trips, not at all. i think it's a fantastic ruling and the correct decision. >> bill: stand by for us. send it to shannon bream at the supreme court with new information. what have you got? >> so justice sotomayor is still reading her dissent from the bench. it's what is holding us up

getting the student loan case. she has a right to do that. we hear from justices when they're passionate about dissent or majority opinion. i want to read you more of the majority opinion from gorsuch. speech for only some messages and some persons is no commitment at all. he said by approving a government's effort to eliminate disfavored ideas, today's dissent is emblematic of a tendency by some to defend first amendment values only when they find the speaker's message sympathetic. this was a free speech case and justice gorsuch is very pointedly saying to the dissent are you okay with monitoring speech when it disagrees with certain viewpoints? it's not a constitutional ideal. one of the worst cases i covered was the westboro baptist church that had hideous signs and

demonstrations at funerals. they won their case 8-1 because speech that is not palatable to everybody is protected. this is a religious view by the web designer. either free speech is free speech or the government has a right to decide which ideas are favored or disfavored. that can't be the case he writes. >> dana: most cases are decided 9-0, 8-1. a lot of consensus. then you get a case like this where as you are explaining it to me and as i understand it oh, that makes perfect sense. yet you have these strong dissents and public who is out there in affirmative action yesterday for the people who disagreed with the decision, maybe they are heartbroken and worried and upset and you have this decision today. i imagine that there are people saying this is terrible. this means that if i'm gay it means if somebody doesn't like

me. that's not what the court is saying. it's interesting they can't get to a 9-0 or 8-1 decision on free speech. >> yesterday they got a 9-0. the postal delivery. it became a problem with sunday. 9-0 employers have to make more accommodations for people with religious beliefs in the workplace. for people who read the dissent from affirmative action and people reading the dissent today in the case involving the web designer and lgbtq protections and they will be hurt. the majority is talking about a case they aren't deciding. so clearly these two sides don't see it the same way. the biggest, toughest cases come in the last week. when summer break hits and the bell rings this afternoon that they're done with these opinions. i think they are ready to cool

down and do their summers. they respect each other as colleagues. we see that out front and behind the scenes as well. they need a break in the summer. big decisions come, everybody needs a break. >> bill: you mentioned your coverage of the case with the westboro baptist church. they stand outside soldiers funerals and say thank god for dead soldiers. >> they have the protections of the first amendment. >> it was an 8-1 decision. just as dana was saying we have a 6-3 decision on not that similar of a case but another free speech case. what are the parallels with cases? two of them that have established the first amendment rights. >> yeah, this court is very protective of the first amendment. we've seen that in a lot of things. the westboro case is a perfect illustration of that. as gorsuch says we don't need the first amendment for the speech we like and agree on. it's the really difficult, ugly difficult places where there are serious disagreements or offensive viewpoints to one side

or the other but the first amendment says we have something like the first amendment and that people are allowed to share ideas. go after your political leaders and not worry about going to jail and do things in this country. d.c. there is a protest on the streets every day. a huge one at scotus yesterday. the court is very protective of the freedom and don't want to silence anybody regardless of their position if it is on tent. threatening people is a different thing. what we're talking about here is speech that people don't agree on. different ideas. this court wants to make clear this country is a unique place and that you can have these very difficult differing opinions and there has to be space for that. >> dana: thank you, shannon. stand by. we're waiting for the student loan decision as soon as the dissents are read. ilya shapiro, can i ask you about how these cases come to be? i just want to know, are people who are religious, who own a business, can they sometimes be

targeted to try to get some attention for things like this? >> absolutely. today's day and age of polarization and decline of social trust, this kind of it would fit into cancel culture if you are being boycotted and protested just because -- not because of anything you do with your business but people don't like the views that the owners might have. not in this case lorie smith doesn't want to do something for a same sex wedding but there are cases where donors to politically incorrect campaigns have been boycotted. frozeing out of bank accounts in canada. this is not the government persecuting them or forcing them to do one thing or another. this is private action. it is a troubling development for our society certainly and goes against the live and let live culture that i think is

part of american bedrock principles. there is not much that the supreme court can do necessarily in this case unless there is government involvement or as is happening with the tech companies, collusion between private actors and the government. >> bill: for people who haven't been following this case, what exactly happened with lorie smith that christian web designer? >> so lori saw what happened with jack with masterpiece cake shop and knew in her graphic design firm she wanted to do websites for weddings but saw that chill, saw that she would be prosecuted violating colorado law if she didn't do that for same sex weddings. she went to court and asked for a declaratory judgment meaning i recognize what i want to do seems to conflict with this law. can i do it anyway? it seems unconstitutional. that's how she got into court without, unlike jack phillips,

having a lawsuit filed against her. i want to say one more thing to the broader conversation about what's going on at the court. until yesterday, the general discussion was how surprising the court was, how ecumenical and all over the place. justice gorsuch, alito in thomas were in dissent. those statistics are still very much in play. the three cases yesterday, two today are not going to change that overall trend line of the court really grappling with the law and having a lot of alignments. so-called vibe after yesterday and today will be again about the conservatives win and biden talking about it not being a normal court. senators and others saying it is extreme. the statistics be lie that narrative that a lot of the media pushes that this court is somehow out there and the six republican appointed justices are taking it in the direction

outside the mainstream. >> dana: jonathan turley you are reading through. what's the practical effect of this? not just her particular business in that particular state of colorado. this is now nationwide. >> right. so this will not impact products that are pre-made. if you are a bakery and you have pre-made cakes you still have to comply with public accommodation laws and still have to sell your product to everyone in the public. it will deal with those things that are expressive. those things that are creative. the most common cases we've seen so far have been bakers, photographers, florists, now a web designer. they are people saying look, you came to me because you like my style of product. but i don't want to specifically celebrate certain things that i disagree with. what was interesting in the case below is the 10th circuit said

that eliminating ideas is the very purpose. the name of this commissiony and the underlying law. the court was very blunt and said yeah, you have the wrong ideas. so they've got to go. well, gorsuch today said the first amendment is a different purpose. it is to make sure that you don't have to give up those views in order to function in society, including as a business person. this was an important decision for gorsuch the same way yesterday was an important decision for roberts. roberts has been working for years toward that decision on affirmative action in education. this was really gorsuch's case from the beginning. he was born in colorado, he served on the 10th circuit, he is perhaps the most libertarian of the court. highly principled. this was really in his wheel house. it will be one of his most lasting opinions when we look back at his still-unfolding legacy.

you know, reading this opinion as a free speech advocate is really quite moving because you can -- for the free speech community, this is going to be the free speech comparison of other momentous decisions like miranda and brown and other cases that reframe their field. >> bill: i want to get your thoughts what dana was mentioning. when you read the majority in this case it seems like a cut and dry opinion under the first amendment free speech. we used to have decisions 8-1, 7-2. why is it that we're getting these 6-3 a more fractured court on what seems to be a fairly open and shut when you look at the first amendment? >> you know, this has been a collision that has been in the making for decades. 20 years ago i wrote an academic piece how we were going to face this moment as anti-discrimination laws collided with free exercise and free speech. and the courts have had an awfully difficult time dealing

with it. it is finally reached a point of clarity with gorsuch and he was the perfect one to write this opinion. i'm biased. i testified for his confirmation. i told democratic senators they were wrong about him and he will vote with the left of the court and his principles take him to a historic moment in this opinion. >> dana: let's get back to the supreme court live there on the supreme court grounds. shannon bream. we have another decision on student loans? >> okay. we have two. we're trying to parse through it. the first case dealt with the individual borrowers. what the court decided unanimously they don't have standing. so the case for the individual borrowers don't have standing meaning they don't go anywhere on the merits of the case. we now get into the second case written, i believe, by the chief justice john roberts saying the group of states who sued appears

they do have standing. with that in mind we need to get to the guts of the case. 6-3. the chief is writing for the majority. a hint which way we think the case will go. at least one of these cases the states have merit. one of the cases tossed on standing. the other gets to the merit. by the dissent, you look at the -- it says the court agrees with the states. this group of states. here is jack. thank you, jack. okay. the heroes act what the biden administration used to justify foregiving part of the students loan, doesn't authorize the debt forgiveness plan. let me get here and make sure i have the right one. so again it looks like this is written by the chief justice and looks like another 6-3.

roberts, alito, gorsuch, kavanaugh and barrett files them. kagan files the dissenting official. sotomayor and jackson. this is the conclusion what the court said. it has become a disturbing feature to criticize decisions for which they disagree going beyond the proper role. judiciary. today we have concluded that missouri is a proper case to this. gone through the traditional tools of decision making analysis. reasonable minds can disagree and it's important the public not be misled by some of what they're hearing about the court. there has been so much said about the court. it says the heroes act provides no authorization for the secretary of education plan, even when examined using statutory interpretation and clear congressional authority for such a program. the first look says it

forgiveness is gone. >> dana: the supreme court struck down president biden's student loan forgiveness program trying to use the heroes act. the court is saying in a 6-3 decision that is not going to be allowed. there are millions of borrowers, 26 million who had applied for this program who are finding out today it is not going to be something that they will be able to take advantage of. shannon, what's interesting is that leading up to this over the last few years, former speaker nancy pelosi, even president biden himself, said we don't have the legal authority to do this. this would not be constitutional. and yet they did it anyway. was this the way for them to get to a decision so that they can say to the people agitating from the left that this is not constitutional so therefore we can't do it. let's find another way. economic growth, tax cuts or something to help people having a hard time paying their loans.

>> this is going to be another not that the president is on the re-election campaign another argument he uses saying i tried to get you the student loan forgiveness, debt forgiveness plan done but the court -- maga court, which is what the left is calling them this week. they weren't when they liked the decision, but they are calling it that now and they won't like this one. he will say it the supreme court stacked full of trump app appointees. that's what is being crafted in the speech and what they'll say. the basic and tradeoffs inherent in a mat debt cancellations program that congress intended for itself. the secretary of education to point to -- they didn't have the power to do this. the court says we don't want to get involved in things we thought congress was the ones to do including billions of dollars of student loan debt

cancellation. the dissent again says this. the secretary the did no more than use lawfully delegated authority. so they clearly see this differently. the dissent believes there was authority for the secretary to do this. 6-3 majority says no dice. that student loan program was voted down by the house and senate just weeks ago goes away officially. >> bill: major breaking news affecting millions of people who thought they would get up to $20,000 in forgiven student loans. stand by and read through that and we'll bring in jonathan turley. you heard shannon mention they can't used the heroes act for this. heroes act was post 9/11 allowed the federal government to make changes to student loans or loans as a result of a national emergency. in this case they were using covid-19 as the national emergency. but that emergency is now over

so there was essentially no standing to use the heroes act. am i understanding that correctly, jonathan? >> yeah, this is a huge defeat for the biden administration politically and legally. it is only the latest such defeat where the president has overreached on his authority. previously the president argued that he could use the cdc as the basis for the eviction moratorium during the pandemic even though many of us said he clearly lacked that authority. he went ahead and did it anyway. he admitted by the time the courts might strike down his efforts he could get a lot of money out the door. well, that's a level of contempt that doesn't sit well with the court. in this case, you had the heroes act, just a few pages long, was clearly designed to help people who were serving abroad in military conflicts so they didn't have to worry about their college tuition payments.

the use of the heroes act for this massive loan forgiveness program was absurd. it bordered on the obscene. it was clear they clear they could not get it through congress and decided to come up with a novel theory to circumvent congress. what was really unbelievable to watch is that he -- the democrats applauded him for that and made congress a functional none entityy and half of congress gave him a standing ovation. >> dana: he want to bring in elaine. you were part of this suit in terms of being against it. against biden's student loan forgiveness plan and you get this result that you had today 6-3 supreme court striking down biden's student loan plan. your reaction. >> thanks for having me, dana. it is a great day and a great

victory for all americans but it is really a great victory for our constitution. we're very pleased that this ruling strikes down this illegal program. this is probably one of the most egregious examples of executive overreach in the history of modern america to be honest with you. the president didn't have the authority under the heroes act and we're pleased that the supreme court stepped in. we're also very proud of the work our case that we did in our case because it was our case in texas that actually stopped this program when the texas judge vacated the entire program and prevented any of the forgiveness from happening. it allowed this case to get to the supreme court and it allowed today to happen where the american people won. >> bill: go ahead and stand by for us. shannon bream is still live at the court. you have more information on these opinions coming in. what have you got? >> justice -- chief justice is

reading from his opinion. based on the pattern we've seen i expect the dissenters led by justice kagan. as we've seen this week a lot of back and forth between the dissent and majority going after each other. dissent. the behest. states coming forward they would be injured by the forgiveness plan. at the behest of a party that suffered no injury. the people they represent. in saying so strongly i do not at all disparage those who disagree. what i was reading from the chief justice. i'm not disparaging the defense and what they have to say. they say the majority is right to make the point and nothing personal in the dispute. justices have gone back and forth on the issues over time. they don't think we should have gotten to the merits of the case. missouri, the case -- the state found to have standing didn't have standing at all and make a

full throated defense of that. in the majority the chief justice telling them they're wrong and they'll disagree. he has the closing paragraph that's very interesting saying it's important that the public not be misled by those who are criticizing these majority opinions as being political. any misperception would be harmful to this institution and to our country. so he is saying these people going after the majority whether inside or outside of the court saying it's a maga court or driven by politics actually injures the institution. it seems he is saying here dissenters, be careful. you are hurting the court. it is as nice as it can be but clearly a heated disagreement. waiting to see if justice kagan reads. >> dana: when justice roberts says that he is using strong language. jonathan turley, professor at g.w. university and fox news contributor is still with us. one of the things i've always felt about this.

american people watching this story, if you weren't somebody who had a student loan, millions of them and you took out a loan let's say for equipment like an excavator or backhoe. no one in the federal government was talking about helping you. yet your tax dollars were supposed to go and help these people who took out a loan, signed their name on the dotted line and i feel for them that they haven't been able to make ends meet or having a hard time making loan payments. i know that the universities deserve a lot of blame here for the amount that they are charging. but a contract is a contract. and it was the unfairness that was driving a lot of the public opinion about this. get your thoughts on that. does the court take into account you had millions of taxpayers across the country who don't have student loans and why should they pay for some of this? >> it actually came up in oral argument. it is relevant only in this

respect. this could never have gotten through congress. never in a thousand years because of the issue you identified. many people decided not to go to college. they became plumbers, carpenters, they took out loans for equipment, and nobody is helping those people. and that's the reason that president biden had to come up a way to do it by himself. there is no license to go it alone in the u.s. constitution. not when you don't have a prior congressional authorization. there were law professors who came out in my view bizarrely and said no, the heroes act gives him ample authority. not the intent of congress. what's interesting is the witness for the majority against the biden administration in this opinion turned out to be former

speaker nancy pelosi. they quote her at length in saying of course the president can't just grant loan forgiveness. and so she is really in the argument of the majority for saying this is not a close call. you really overstepped and overreached as a president and this is now unconstitutional. >> bill: go ahead and stand by for us. want to bring in ken coleman. this is now $400 billion of potential student -- we're talking $4 hundred billion of taxpayer money that would go to some of these students and that has been thrown out now. your response. >> i think it's a great win for individual responsibility in america. it was a cheap political promise that was a slap in the face of not just the millions of americans dana pointed out. how about folks like me who actually went to college, we had student loans and we paid them

off? and the twisted irony of this really cheap promise was that the student loan program is not being addressed at all. we're barreling towards $2 trillion of student loan debt that is breaking so many americans who owe years after they took the loan out than when they first got the money. it is crippling people. we've got to get real about this program. how are we going to help americans go to college but not saddle them with debt? this is big business for banks, big business for our federal government. so as we talk right now, millions of americans are filling out student loans that they may never repay. or that will cripple them once they get out of school. so i think you are also going to see a real backlash here from people who thought well, this was my get out of jail free card and they will say this is unfair. but it's really fair. this is a fair decision by the

court. it is constitutional and as your guests have said it is a big defeat for executive overreach where it gets politicized. we have to take on the bigger issue here, which is outrageous tuition costs of colleges that continue to go up as they continue to fill their coffers. billion else and billions of dollars in endowments not used to help students. it's an individual responsibility but put the focus how can we help people get a college education or further education without being saddled with student loan program? >> dana: i had a student loan as well. did pay it off. i remember the anxiety. you and i have talked about this. i would pay three months ahead because i was afraid what if my waitressing job doesn't give me enough money to pay for it. it is a big deal and you can listen to the ken coleman show

or dave ramsey if you are having trouble pay your loans. they have ideas for you to get it down. stand by, i want to bring in ilya shapiro. there are a couple of things. i just remember in 60 minutes vice president biden did an interview in 2022 charles cook of national review wrote the piece on september 18th which the president says oh 60 minutes this idea would be unconstitutional. yet yesterday he said this is not a normal court when it comes to the affirmative action case decision. what will he say today when he himself said it wasn't constitutional? >> not that what the president says about it is necessarily binding on the court or government. it is a tell. they do quote nancy pelosi, as you said. everybody recognized this was a political stunt. it was posturing ahead of the 2022 election.

this was being able to argue against the court as they are going to be doing now. but after -- the writing was already on the wall after the throwing out of the cdc's eviction moratorium. the vaccine mandate for private employers and the epa's regulation of greenhouse gas emissions to clean power plant in the west virginia versus epa case. the court has again and again indicated it won't read broad authority into allegedly ambiguous or catch-all provisions in statutes. this was all the way down a cynical political stunt. it is ironic that the president and democratic leaders often assail their political opponents for impugning the legitimacy or attacking the institutions of our nation, where as you said, they and for that matter the dissent in this case that throws shade at the normal operation of

the court to maintain the separation of powers. if congress wanted to pass this, which the previous guest is right would never have happened. but that's a different story. the executive can't completely rewrite the law. the key line, however broad the meaning of waive or modify quoting the heroes act it can't rewrite the statute that has taken place this. this is bread and butter statutory interpretation and such a shame it is made into a political football. >> bill: a busy 25 hours now. 36-3 decisions. affirmative action gone. student loan bail outs gone. free speech won. the left wing -- let's send it to mark meredith live at the white house this morning. mark, are we hearing any response from the white house yet one day after he said this is not a normal court? >> bill and dana, good morning

to you. the president will probably have stronger words today. a defeat for a program he has been talking about since campaigning. we heard from the former white house chief of staff ron klain who said it was another awful decision from the supreme court. he was here at the white house when they pushed out the program in august of last year. the president surprised folks yesterday when he added the speech on his schedule yesterday. certainly possible we could see that again today. getting ready to head for camp david for the holiday weekend. the white house likely to address what they say will be questions for people about what's next. department of education likely to put out another letter or detail for people saying how else can you get help? the program that this supreme court struck down today will not be an option for this white house. what's interesting we've been talking about this morning for the president, this was already an issue. he wasn't always comfortable with. some calls on the left to push for even larger amounts of student loan debt forgiveness. talk of $50,000. the senate majority leader pushed it throughout last year. the white house saying they would never get to that number.

they settled on the $10,000 costing close to $4 hundred billion to taxpayers. the white house looking to say where we'll go from here and what the next steps will be. have to wait to see what the white house will say. the president wasn't happy with court yesterday. if he repeats it is not a normal court or sharpen his language has yet to be seen. the president has made it clear he is not for packing the court. he doesn't want to see additional justices brought on even though some democrats have suggested it may be the best way to move forward. for president biden certainly an effort to address what he says was a need to help americans struggling. obviously the pandemic has been declared over. the option to do it through this heroes act was no longer in the court's view an option for that one. >> dana: i have a couple of questions and a thought and piece of advice for the white house. what did ron klain say? >> this is the best part of

having a laptop. i can say specifically. he said it was another awful decision from this supreme court. >> dana: let's talk about awful decisions for a second, okay? the president himself and the former speaker of the house, nancy pelosi said it was unconstitutional. the progressive left listened to the squad. what is an awful decision was putting the president in this position in the first place. now you have a situation where the president will say he will say it's not a normal court, this is awful, outrageous, they are against the students, they are against black americans, they are against all of these things. when especially on the student loan thing, he is going into a re-election and you can imagine the left will say what are you going to do now? they will demand it. which he is already in a perilous position anyway with his approval rating. student loan forgiveness does not poll well with the swing voters. when they think about awful decision.

how about the awful decision to have it initially. the president could say we gave it a shot. i wasn't sure if it was constitutional. i want to give you relief. didn't happen. let's grow this economy, bidenomics is amazing. i don't think they'll do that and i would love your thoughts on all my ranting. sorry to rant but when i think about an awful decision they put the president in a terrible position. i said it back then and they should have stopped initially. >> to your point, this may be more about politics than anything else because like you said, they can turn it into a campaign commercial look what the president was pushing for and that he was rebuffed. i understand completely what you are saying. it may look like a loss on paper today in terms of the political points even though the polling isn't there they'll turn it into a positive for the next cycle as to what president biden will say today when it comes to the court i would imagine it will be more of a repeat what we heard yesterday. he feels this is just not the court that he would have liked to have seen and not what he

would have envisioned if he had had his way. the question also will be about whether or not this really will become more of an issue next year or will it fall by the wayside. something that people are still dealing with? the polling, whether or not it is turned into a bigger issue next year i think is yet to be seen. we'll see what the president has to say later today and also i could say i just got this moments ago and i have the laptop here. white house sources telling us while we strongly disagree with court we were prepared for this scenario. the president will have more to say today. he has made it clear he is not done fighting yet and announce actions to protect student loan borrowers. republicans are responsible for denying the relief president biden has been fighting to get. president is going to talk about this today. he will say it's republicans who are responsible for denying this relief plan even though it was the supreme court that ruled on it and we'll strongly disagree with court and we were prepared for this scenario. >> dana: can't wait for them to

talk about how the heroes act meant for military people after 9/11 makes a lot of sense. mark meredith. thank you for all that. >> bill: you love to rant. you know what you are talking about. >> dana: every once in a while. >> bill: if we have jonathan turley, final thoughts. once the covid emergency was over there was basically 0 grounds left that this thing could move forward, right? >> yeah, but they were also making the world's most implausible argument to justify it. interesting how students react. they got played here. the president can seem irate but he sold the brooklyn bridge to people on the street and he lives without a constitutional system. you need to go to congress to get money particularly of this size. he didn't want to do that for one reason. he couldn't get it through. and so this is a very important

reaffirmation of our constitutional system. it baffles me that the dissent would have allowed this to go through. you could have a president becoming an effective government onto itself. >> dana: we could. >> bill: we have to run. i think how many students took out a loan thinking they would get it paid off. >> dana: i know. as we said $1200 more in credit card debt added in the last three years waiting for this. "the faulkner focus" is up next. gillian turner is in for harris. you can take my rant from here. >> gillian: i can also thank dana and bill, which is nice. fox news alert. moments ago the supreme court struck down president biden's student debt relief program. 6-3 decision split alodge ideological lines. the president lacks the legal authority to provide billion else of dollars in federal student loan forgiveness without authorization from congress. i'm gillian turner