♪ geoff: good evening. i'm geoff bennett. amna nawaz is away. on "the newshour" tonight... the u.s. supreme court strikes down president biden's student debt relief program and sides with a web designer who refused service for same-sex couples. the united states failed to plan for worst-case scenarios before the fall of afghanistan. we look at that and other findings in a new state department report. and... republican presidential candidates appear at an education event run by a group with increasing ties to

far-right extremists. ♪ >> major funding for "the pbs newshour" has been provided by the ongoing support of these individuals and institutions, and friends of "the newshour," including jim and nancy goldman and kathy and paul anderson. >> the john s. and james l. knight foundation, fostering informed and engaged communities. more at kf.org. ♪ >> and with ongoing support of these individuals and institutions -- and friends of "the newshour." ♪

this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting and contributions to your pbs station by viewers like you. thank you. geoff: good evening and welcome to "the newshour." we are following two major decisions on the final day of the supreme court's term. the justices struck down president biden's plan to cancel more than 400 billion dollars in student loan debt for millions of borrowers. the court also ruled that a colorado website designer can refuse to create a website for a same-sex couple on first amendment grounds. justice neil gorsuch wrote in the majority opinion, "colorado seeks to force an individual to speak in ways that align with its views but defy her conscience about a matter of major significance." toniwithneur" prerage again

t anysrciaoy thank you for being with us. let's start with the student loan case, the supreme court voting 6-3 along ideological lines, tossed out president biden's plan to slash the student debt of more than 40 million people on the grounds he had exceeded his power, but justice kagan wrote that congress had authorized the plan, and adds, "in every respect the court exceeds its proper role in our nation's governance." marcia: the chief justice wrote the majority opinion. he looked at what authority secretary of education had under the heroes act to waive or modify student loan provisions. he examined the meaning of waive or modify and he looked at how the department used the authority in the past and concluded those words did not stretch far enough to encompass what the secretary did here.

which he said was to create a whole new program, a program that was huge and costly. that he said triggered what the court has called the major questions doctrine. if there is a federal regulation that has vast economic or political significance, there has to be clear authorization from congress. he said that was not here. geoff: in the other case, the court ruled in favor of a colorado web designer who said she wanted to create wedding websites without having to provide services for same-sex couples. this was a purely hypothetical claim. she had not been asked to create such a website. how did the court arrive at its decision? marcia: this was interesting, you had two very different views of public accommodation laws, which are antidiscrimination laws in the marketplace of public goods and services, what they do. justice gorsuch wrote the

majority opinion, looked at the laws and said in the web designer case, it was compelling her to speak against her religious beliefs and the first amendment, free speech trumps public accommodation laws. justice sotomayor said public accommodation laws have been viewpoint neutral and that's how they are operating good -- operating. they are not compelling speech, they are saying you just can't act in a certain way to discriminate against protected categories of people and the law does say who is protected. you had a very different view of these laws. you mentioned justie sotomayor's dissent, she said quote today the court for the first time the court rents a business a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class. does this ruling fit at all with recent court precedent?

marcia: mostly the reliance was on older precedents, first amendment precedents or civil rights law precedents. the tricky thing here is just as gorsuch said this opinion applies to expressive speech, expressive conduct like a web designer or a speechwriter. but he really doesn't define what is expressive conduct and that's what justice sotomayor your is the big hole that has been blown into public accommodation laws, that they will allow discrimination in many situations th in the past had not been allowed. geoff: marcia, we are lucky to be able to draw on your vast experience and insights. thank you. marcia: my pleasure. geoff: let's focus more now on the court ruling against president biden's one-time plan to cancel up to $20,000 dollars in federal student loan debt -- a decision that affects more than 40 million borrowers. president biden addressed the decision, speaking at the white house today. pres. biden: today's decision

has closed one path. now we're going to pursue another. i'm never going to stop fighting for you. we'll use every tool at our disposal to get you the udent debt relief you need and reach your dreams. it's good for the economy. it's good for the country. it's going to be good for you. geoff: danielle douglas-gabriel covers the economics of higher education for "the washington post," and joins me now. thank you for being with us. president biden said today he thought the court misinterpreted what he was trying to do with the student debt relief and he laid out a new path he says will help as many americans but will take a little longer. what is he aiming to do? danielle: the president initiated today what is known as the negotiated rulemaking process, whereby the education department convenes a committee of legal experts and higher education experts to weigh in on a draft regulation that would essentially try to achieve exactly what the president did

through his executive order, but through a more proven and i guess possibly less challenge able legal route. the trouble is many legal experts still suspect that even if the negotiated rule is finalized, which could take months and likely not come into play until late next year, it will still likely face legal challenges and we may start the process all over again of ending up with another case that heads to the supreme court. geoff: is there an expected timeline? how long might this take? danielle: certainly not until probably the first quarter or so of next year if not longer. typically there is a convening of the negotiators and then they have to go through various processes of going over draft regulation, put in comment, and

then a rule is issued, which will likely happen, if we are lucky, they can get it done by november, then there is public comment that could take another couple of months. if they are able to finalize it by spring you could possibly see a rule by the following july or so. but that is contingent upon how quickly the department of education can bring this process together. but it is not something that can be done with the stroke of a pen, which is what lots of lawmakers and activists were hoping to achieve through the executive order that was struck down by the supreme court today. geoff: we spoke today with people on both sides of the issue and here is reaction first from mike pierce, executive director of the student borough -- student borrower protection center. mike: this is devastating for tens of millions of people that depended on president biden's promise to cancel student debt. there has been a long movement

to get to this point, recognizing that people are struggling under the weight of unaffordable debt and the government needs to do something about it. i don't want to sugarcoat how meaningful this loss is for working people that have student loans that were depending on this as a way out. today is a bad day for student loan borrowers. geoff: what options are left for borrowers in the short term? danielle: alongside his announcement of a new route for this policy, the president said he's also trying to give hours -- give borrowers an additional reprieve that are slated to resume payments in october. borrowers will have a 12 month grace period if they miss payments during that time. it will not thing their credit or hurt financial standing. certainly that would be very helpful to millions of americans who really didn't know how to

anticipate the re-addition of their student loan bills, which on average could be as much as $300 if not more per month for many families. geoff: we also spoke with mark goldwine with the committee for responsible federal budget and here's what he had to say. mark: we need a plan to get higher education costs under control and improve quality. but this is simply a giveaway to college educated americans, mostly in the top half of the income spectrum who already went to college and took out the loans. it's telling them you don't have to pay back the money because you're lucky enough to be the 13% of americans that will get a $10,000 or $20,000 check from the federal government. geoff: he also argues that rather than addressing debt we should focus on the cost of tuition. is there an appetite in congress right now to do that? danielle: there is and you've seen legislation coming from both sides of the aisle trying to address some of the issues of affordability. there is so much partisan rancor around the issue of financial aid at this moment that it is

difficult to see a bipartisan solution moving forward, but not impossible. i think you're also seeing from the department of education more measures to address accountability, making sure that if students are going to borrow all of this money for an education, the institutions providing it are held accountable for the outcomes, whether they are graduating with too much debt relative to how much they are earning and starting to be more transparent about that. is that enough to really address what many families are paying for college? many would say no but it is a start. i think it's something this administration hopes to build on. geoff: danielle, thank you for your time this evening. we appreciate it. john yang has more now on the court's ruling in favor of a web designer who refuses to create websites for same-sex couples because of her religious beliefs. john: geoff, the justices sided

with her on a 6-3 ideological split, saying that forcing her to make websites for something she doesn't believe in would violate her first amendment rights. writing for the majority, justice neil gorsuch wrote, "the first amendment protects an individual's right to speak his mind regardless of whether the government considers his speech sensible and well intentioned or dely misguided, and likely to cause anguish or incalculable grief." today the colorado attorney general said the decision gives businesses free rein to discriminate. >> this sweeping opinion promises to destabilize theic md encouraging all types ofpu bl sinesses, not just those who make websites, to have a first amendment right to refuse customers because of who they are. john: president biden said the decision was disappointing. kate sosin is a reporter at the 19th news, where they cover lgbtq+ issues.

kate, from your perspective, what is the significance of today's ruling? kate: today's ruling is very significant in that lgbtq+ people are going to wake up tomorrow in a country where their government decided it is protected speech to turn them away from businesses because of who they are. that is a statement that we have not seen before. we are changing precedent. that said, this ruling is very specific to lorie smith and her case. it does not greenlight blanket discrimination against lgbtq+ people immediately. john: you are right, it does narrow this to services that express creative content, expression. could businesses try to frame their businesses in those terms?

kate: that's what a lot of experts and advocates are expressing concern over. this remains to be seen. the way we would like to describe it, it creates a new opening, so it signals the supreme court and lower courts will now entertain this question of whether or not you can turn away an lgbtq+ person because of your beliefs. theoretically, based on this decision alone, it shouldn't. however, we've never had a decision where we say your religious beliefs allow you to turn away lgbtq+ people and so cracking the door open, a lot of people feel like could be the start of an avalanche. john: what is the current climate for lgbtq+ rights? kate: there are two answers. the first is the political climate, which i think a lot of us know has been really hard for lgbtq+ people. we've seen more than 520

anti-lgbtq+ bills introduced in state legislatures this year. as presidential campaigns ramp up, we know candidates are campaigning on anti-lgbtq+ stances. that said, the country, the electorate, is moving toward acceptance of lgbtq+ people. glaad released a study at the beginning of june that found 91% of americans who are non-lgbtq+ support the idea that lgbtq+ people should not be discriminated against. so there is a huge disparity between the political climate and the lives of everyday people. john: before the oral arguments, we spoke with the website designer, lorie smith. she is the center of the case. she told us she thought the fight for her first amendment right was not just for christian conservatives but all artists. lorie: that right is guaranteed to artists like myself, but also

to artists like the lgbt website designer and graphic designer who should not be forced by the government to create messages opposing same-sex marriage. that right to speak freely is guaranteed to all of us. john: that said, she had a lot of legal support from some christian conservative groups. kate: she did and it is important to note that the alliance defending freedom, which is the nation's most powerful anti-lgbtq+ legal organization, took her case. we've seen them take a number of anti-lgbtq+ cases to the supreme court and othecourts. this is an organization that advocates that lgbtq+ people are similar to pedophiles. it's also an organization that has had past ties to justice amy coney barrett. who had five paid engagements

for adf. the landscape here is changing for us. what we are seeing is a mainstreaming of an organization that we use to consider an extremist organization that has been labeled a hate group by advocacy groups, coming in and advocating something we have now made the law of the land, essentially. john: a lot of people may be thinking this was already settled by the supreme court, five years ago there was a case from colorado as well dealing with some of these issues. what was different between these two cases and what happened in the other case? kate: the other case was similar, in that you had a baker who said his custom cakes amounted to already -- to art and he didn't want to make a cake for same-sex couple who wanted to get married. five years ago the supreme court said we don't want to rule on this issue of religious freedom versus lgbtq+ protections. instead of really engaging with

the issue, they ruled very narrowly for the baker and said the colorado civil rights division displayed animus toward him because of his religious beliefs. it left open the door, or at least the possibility that future lawsuits like this could come. however, it did not undo antidiscrimination protections in the same way. the court declined to engage with the issue until today. john: kate, thank you very much. kate: thank you so much. ♪ stephanie: i'm stephanie sy with "newshour west." here are the latest headlines. updating our top story, the supreme court also agreed to hear a majorecond amendment case in its next term on whether domestic abusers can own firearms. judges will consider the constitutionality of a 30-year-old law restricting gun ownership for people with restraining orders.

more than half the country was under outdoor advisories today. poor air quality from hundreds of wildfires in canada continued to disperse, shrouding major u.s. cities like new york in a haze. meantime, heat indexes remained dangerously high in parts of california and the deep south. as july 4 nears, houston's mayor urged texans to take heed. mayor turner: it's important th we all take the necessary precautions. be mindful of not leaving anybody in your car, including pets, and then be mindful when we come out to celebrate the fourth of july celebrations that we come prepared. stephanie: the heat has been blamed for more than 14 deaths in the u.s., and mexico's health ministry reported at least 100 deaths there over the past two weeks. riots erupted in paris overnight for a third straight day over the fatal police shooting of a 17-year-old earlier this week. demonstrators shot fireworks at police dressed in riot gear and set cars and bushes ablaze.

more than 1000 protesters have been arrested. during an emergency meeting, french president emmanuel macron blamed social media for fueling the violence. pres. macron: we have started taking measures in coordination with these platforms to remove the most sensitive content. the authorities are working with these platforms to obtain an effective response, and i expect the platforms to act responsibly. stephanie: president macron ordered the suspensionf public transportation across the country tonight, but stopped short of declaring a state of emergency. at least 48 people died in a road crash in kenya today. a truck veered off a highway about 125 miles northwest of nairobi. it struck several vehicles before hitting pedestrians and traders at a market. it was one of kenya's deadliest road accidents in recent years. prosecutors in ukraine have brought their first charges against a russian politician and two ukrainians of war crimes for

having forcibly removed dozens of orphans between the ages of 1 and 4 from the southern city of kherson. kyiv claims moscow has illegally taken more than 19,000 ukrainian children to russia or russian-held territory. usenko: we don't know how these children are, in what conditions they are kept, or what their fate is. they may have been illegally adopted by russian citizens, or taken to russian institutions. stephanie: the charges follow a wider investigation by the international criminal court in the hague. the u.s. flew nuclear-capable bombers to the korean peninsula today in a message to north korea. the b-52 planes were joined by south korean fighter jets. the drills came after north korean state tv broadcast huge anti-american rallies over the weekend that vowed a war of revenge against the u.s. fox news will pay a former tucker carlson tonight producer $12 million to settle her claims that the show had a cruel and misogynistic work environment. she had also accused the network

of trying to coerce her into giving false testimony in the dominion voting systems defamation lawsuit against the network. fox news parted ways tucker carlson back in april. hollywood's biggest names may soon go on strike if a new contract isn't secured by midnight. sag-aftra, the union representing 160,000 performers, has been in negotiations with the alliance of motion picture and television producers since the beginning of this month. 98% of sag members voted to authorize a strike. one of their key concerns is how ai technology is affecting their work. and, actor alan arkin died thursday at his home in carlsbad, california. he started his career in 1961 on broadway, and won a tony award two years later. arkin went on to appear in more than 100 movies. in 2007, he earned an oscar for his role as an uninhibited yet supportive grandfather in "little miss sunshine." >> where'd you get the idea you're a loser?

>> because dad hates losers. >> whoa, whoa, whoa... back up a minute. you know what a loser is? a real loser is somebody that's so afraid of not winning, they don't even try. now you're trying, right? >> yeah. >> well then you're not a loser. stephanie: alan arkin was 89 years old. still to come on "the newshour"... republican presidential candidates appear at a far-right education event... colleges adapt their admissions programs in the wake of the affirmative action ruling... and david brooks and jonathan capehart weigh in on the week's political headlines. >> this is "the pbs newshour" from weta studios in washington, and in the west from the walter cronkite school of journalism at arizona state university. geoff: a long-awaited after action report on the u.s. withdrawal from afghanistan has identified a number of failings that contributed to the chaos.

ali rogin has the story. ali: the state department review concluded that both the trump and biden administrations failed to consider worst-case scenarios for what would happen when u.s. troops withdrew. the u.s. government held back on crisis preparation to avoid signaling to the afghan government that it had lost confidence. and that the biden administration failed to appoint a senior official to oversee all elements of crisis response, which led to confusion. for more on this assessment, we turn to washington post national security reporter michael birnbaum. michael, thank you for joining us. what stuck out the most to you in this report? michael: it is a sharply critical report. taking a look at failings mostly in the state department more broadly at the biden and trump white houses. wh stuck out to me is a chronicle of failures and missteps that are on all levels. from the highest levels, thinking about the broad

consequences of the military pullout of afghanistan, how it was going to destabilize the country, down to lower level things such as the effect of the pandemic and the covid lockdown in summer 2021 that made it hard for diplomats to even talk to each other. everyone was locked down in their rooms in the embassy for bunch of critical weeks. ali: you mentioned it was a critical report, but it was done more than a year ago. why is it released now? michael: that's been a subject of a lot of criticism. it's being released shortly before a holiday weekend with no notice. there has been a lot of back and forth with house republicans and other critics of the biden response to the afghanistan pullout. ultimately the house foreign

affairs committee chair threatened to subpoena blinken. he was pushing very hard to have the document released. seems to be a response to it. ali: the report was conducted by a former ambassador, dan smith. why did the state department select someone no longer serving in the department? michael: he is a senior, former diplomat. he led the state department transition ahead of biden coming into office. he is someone with a sterling reputation. he is a little independent since he's no longer working inside the agency. the goal was to come up with -- if you look at the documents, it is not a whitewash. it is pretty tough and has recommendations. i think the goal is to come up with something that would

actually help the department improve, that's certainly what diplomats say is the goal. ali: one thing that stuck out to us was despite the fact thatme,, members of the military, and it was heavily reported at the time, the fallout of the u.s. withdrawal from afghanistan, but this report doesn't go into those warnings in detail. it does make some oblique references including one that as conditions deteriorated, some argued for more urgency and planning. did it surprise you that the report did not seem to go into the fact that there were warnings from numerous channels? michael: that's a good point. this is a state department report, the white house and pentagon did separate reports looking at other aspects of the lead up to the collapse of the afghan government. i think this was intended to be

a document that looked at what the state department could do. it was looking at the process largely of the failure, problems of issuing visas and the bureaucratic aspects of the evacuation. but it did not go into deep tale -- detail about broader issues and failure to listen to warnings, which there were, of problems in the lead up. ali: as you mentioned, this report was released on a friday afternoon before a long holiday weekend. do you think that was deliberate and do you think the messaging coming out from the biden administration will change when asked about afghanistan given the conclusions of this report? michael: it's hard to think this wasn't elaborate. the white house report was just ahead of the easter weekend in april. reporters asked about the timing. we didn't get a comment about

whether this was deliberate, but you can draw your own conclusions. this is a pretty standard way to bury news that administrations of both parties, that they don't want eight attention to. -- don't want paid attention to. i think the biden administration, tony blinken , secretary of state tony blinken sent an email to state department employees today acknowledging problems but saying they have already taken steps to address a lot of them. i don't think this is fundamentally going to change the biden administrations accounting of what really is one of the worst marks of the administration. they offer a robust defense but don't seem to budget much off of it. ali: michael, thank you for joining us. ♪

geoff: as colleges and universities digest yesterday's supreme court ruling that effectively ended affirmative action, schools are left to grapple with how to revamp their admission policies to ensure diversity of their campuses. william brangham takes a look at these implications and how some colleges say they'll ensure diversity remains a top priority. william: geoff, with admissions officers no longer able to take race into account, colleges and universities will need to adopt other approaches if they want to build a diverse student body. for some perspective, we're joined by jeff selingo. he's a writer who's covered higher education for years. he's the author, most recently, of who gets in and why? great to have you back on the newshour. the reality of the new landscape is sinking in for schools. you spent your last book, an

under the hood look with admissions officers, how they go about their jobs. what is your sense of how they will be responding to this new challenge? jeff: they will have to figure it out over the next year. especially given applications will start arriving this fall . one of the interesting things is admissions is a very data-driven operation. they are constantly following how they are doing on their various priorities, whether that is geography, race and ethnicity, men and women -- they are always looking at these priorities for the admissions season that starts in november through the last acceptance or denial in march. they will not be able to track that. they always knew during the process how well they were doing at enrolling black students, or accepting black or hispanic students. they will not be able to do that as much as they used to. they will kind of flying blind in terms of their enrollment until they know the numbers later in the season.

william: the majority opinion written by justice roberts implied there were other ways schools could try to take race into account, through things like essays. is that how you imagine schools will adapt? jeff: i think they will look for other ways. he specifically said students can talk about lived experiences in essays, but he also warned colleges in essentially the same opinion, don't use that as a workaround on race. it's clear students can talk in different places and also teachers and counselors can talk in their recommendations about students, but they have to be clear, there has to be a clear line, and for a lot of admissions readers it will be difficult at least the first year around in terms of determining how can we use race in this way? william: prior to yesterday there were several schools in the country that because of local laws, were not allowed to take race into consideration. california and michigan in particular. what has their experience been like?

are they way to look into the future of how other schools can do this? jeff: definitely. i think the experience there, and i was at the university of washington for my book, it was really around the recruitment process. they had to get that funnel very big at the top to enroll the number of students they wanted. this requires working with high schools, working with high school counselors. there are 25,000 high schools in this country but the reality is that most of the colleges, you might only get applications from 6000 or 7000. most of the students they want our schools that never apply. they have to do a lot more outreach than they ever have before. for most of the schools, they did not do that in the past. william: i understand california spent half $1 billion trying to reach out to students. jeff: and they were focused mostly on california. most of these other colleges will have to look the on -- look beyond their own states. william: justice roberts in his majority opinion said diversity on the campus is a commendable

goal not at the expense of others, was the implication. how do universities respond to this allegation that was made by asian american students that they were being discriminated against in the at shins -- in the admissions process? jeff: we tend to think of admissions as a meritocracy but it never has been one and probably never will be. the reality is nine out of 10 students who apply to the most selective colleges are denied admission. the students who are accepted are accepted for a variety of reasons. we have athletes, legacies. we need to have a balance among gender at these places, balance among geography. sometimes students are accepted because they are from the right state in many cases, or might be a full pay student or the third baseman for the baseball team. we should not think of the meritocracy of admissions as a pure thing. i think that's what was missing in the supreme court decision. william: lastly, the issue of standardized testing -- we know they have been fading somewhat in what schools are requiring

. does this have an impact on that? jeff: i don't think it is coming back, testing is done as a requirement, specially at selective colleges. for two reasons. one is they've seen, because they went test optional during the pandemic, they've gotten a more diverse applicant pool as a result. the other thing is the plaintiffs in these affirmative action cases over the years, going back 20 years, have used test scores as one proof point in terms of that they were discriminated against. students were denied admission with a 1500 s.a.t. and other students with a 1200. when you don't have scores from everybody it is a lot more difficult to make that case. william: jeffrey, thank you. jeff: great to be here. ♪ geoff: over the past few years, many republican-led states have enacted new laws rolling back

the teaching of race and lgbtq rights in classrooms and banning books on those subjects. iny s, t push for these new restrictions is being driven by one group -- moms for liberty, which is holding its annual convention in philadelphia this week. laura barron-lopez reports on the group and its influence. laura: geoff, moms for liberty was founded just two and a half years ago in florida. since then, it's expanded to 45 states and claims 120,000 members. and it has become one of the most influential groups for republican candidates and voters in the 2024 race. several gop candidates made their case today. >> moms for liberty is no hate group, you are joyful warriors, fierce patriots. [applause] you are not a threat to america, you are the best thing that has ever happened to america. >> my wife and i really believe parents in this country should

be able to send their kids to school, should be able to let them watch cartoons or just be kids without having some agenda shoved down their throat. >> you've got biological boys playing in girls sports. this is one of the biggest women's issues of our time. how can we get our girls comfortable with biological boys in their locker room? you can't. laura: to understand more about moms for liberty, i'm joined by david gilbert. he's a reporter at vice news who covers the group. thank you for joining us. you've done multiple investigations into this group, which has spread very fast in a short amount of time. who are they and are they as grassroots as they claim to be? david: moms for liberty was founded in late 2020 by a couple of former school board members who lost their seats and decided they wanted to continue staying in this world, i guess. throughout 2021 and 2022, as you

said, they had explosive growth and on the face it seems they are a grassroots movement of suburban moms and the only aim is to protect students and support public education. but you quickly realize when you start looking into them that what they actually are is an astroturf movement backed by senior figures in the republican party and right wing conservative groups. they've been able to leverage those connections to give themselves this national platform almost instantaneously, and at the same time, they've used harassment tactics to get what they want at the local level by harassing teachers, students, superintendents and school board members. laura: i want to get to those tactics because they started saying they were anti-vaccine and anti-masks, that was the rallying cry, and now they are responsible or a number of book bans across the country about race and gender identity. you looked at the tactics these

members have used against school board officials, against teachers, and especially also when they are talking to other parents and recruiting parents. what did you find? david: firstly, the tactics were to go to school board meetings and shout the loudest and harass and attack school board members. not just at school board meetings but outside of meetings, they attacked them online and in several cases they were able to go to those people's houses and physically and verbally attack them where they lived. from there, they moved on to using their bigger platform i guess in national media to recruit much more people. as you said, the growth rate is astonishing, 300 different chapters now across the country. because of that, they have been able to recruit people to sit on school boards. during the last election cycle they were able to get their members onto school boards.

which means they are in power in certain cases. they are able to affect policy in those school districts. laura: you also, in your investigations, found some of those moms for liberty chapters across the country have ties to extremist groups like the proud boys. tell me what you found. david: with the explosive growth and the fact that the chapters have a major base in florida, they have grown in nearly every state now, and one of the difficulties of that is controlling the narrative what you see is some chapter leaders who have maybe previously had connections to extremist groups such as the proud boys, oath keepers, percenters, they keep using those connections. in one case in florida, we saw

chapter leader of moms for liberty organizing with proud boys members about how they would attack school board meetings. that was not a one-off case. we found this in tennessee and new york where they have very close ties to these groups. they are working basically in coordination with each other to achieve their goals. laura: the group clearly has influence over the gop field, particularly the gop primary race. what impact do you think they will have more broadly as the 2024 race develops and into the general election? david: it is really hard to say at this point. what we can say is if you look at this weekend, every viable candidate looking for the gop nomination is in philadelphia. at one point, robert f kennedy junior, seeking the democratic nomination, was going to speak but he pulled out earlier this week.

they have some sort of power and pull and i think what it comes down to is the fact that they are engaged. their members are active, they are not just sitting on facebook, they are out there in school board meetings and active in their community and that is exactly what trump or desantis or nikki haley or whoever wins the gop nomination wants. they will be able to rally these people. there is a network there already they can plug into and get people out to vote, which is key to winning the 2024 election. laura: david, thank you for your time. david: no problem. ♪ geoff: to discuss the implications of the supreme court's major decisions this week, we turn to the analysis of brooks and capehart.

that's "new york times" columnist david brooks and jonathan capehart, associate editor for "the washington post." welcome to you both. the supreme court has given us much to discuss on this friday. let's start with the supreme court siding with the website designer in colorado who said she had a first amendment right to refuse services to same-sex couples despite a law in colorado that forbids discrimination against gay people. there are religious conservatives hailing this as a victory for religious liberty and others say this ruling created a constitutional right to discriminate. have you see it? david: i am not qualified to give a legal opinion, so i look at is it good or bad for society? in this case you had the right for artistic expression, against nondiscrimination, and a context between those two. the court said free expression. that seems to me is doing great

harm to american society. it seems to me that the idea that we don't discriminate in our businesses, that is a much more serious thing to break that than to restrict someone who is really running a business, not just painting a painting but running a business. if that person is running a business and allowed to discriminate, it seems to me it is poison in our society. geoff: using david's frame, the impact on society, what is your assessment? jonathan: i have to tell you, this ruling and a bunch of other rulings from this court pains me, and it pains me personally. i think david framed it perfectly. i am not a lawyer but i will say this decision is wrong. it is absolutely wrong. it is also wrong because this web designer -- no one asked her to do what she says she feels she will be forced to do. the supreme court just made it possible for private businesses

to discriminate against people like me simply because they fear they might have to do something no one asked them to do? david is right, this decision is definitely a poison on society, also because it is so broad. who is to say it doesn't stop at web designers or private businesses? that it doesn't lead to more erosion of rights for protected classes? geoff: on the matter of the supreme court striking down the use of affirmative action in college admissions policies, colleges certainly have a game plan, we just heard the segment that some are emphasizing the use of essays. president biden suggested a new standard consistent with the law whereby schools can take into account the kind of adversity students have overcome. david: i think there are three

things to be said about is. one, we need diverse colleges and universities and institutions. two, i think there was massive discrimination against asian americans. and three, college admissions at the elite level are rigged for the rich. there are so many of these schools that have more kids from families in the top 1% than the bottom 60%. to me, the way out, which i hope colleges will do, is to say you are not allowing racial preference but we are doing class preference, and if you come from a family with less wealth, we give you a preference. if you do that, because of historic disparities between blacks and whites, you can increase the number of black students and hispanic students, and can take down basically what has become a caste society, which is rich parents with rich kids to elite schools who marry each other and have educated kids who go to elite schools. it has created a horrific class divide in this country.

i think there is a way to do this right and get everything we want, but the universities have to be willing to not bias their whole system toward the rich. geoff: i want to read some notable reaction to the supreme court decision. nikki haley had to say this -- picking winners and losers based on race is fundamentally wrong. this decision will help every student no matter their background, have a better opportunity to achieve the american dream. and from the former first lady, michelle obama -- so often we think money and privilege are forms of affirmative action while kids growing up like i did are expected to compete when the ground is anything level. jonathan, how you see this? jonathan: this is another supreme court decision that hits me personally. were it not for affirmative action, i would not be sitting in this seat, i would not be with david brooks, i would not

have gotten the great education i got. the thing i found most offensive about this decision is the foundation of this so-called colorbnd constitution, that affirmative action flew in the face of the framers's colorblind constitution, which is a fallacy. which i think justice jackson did a superb job, i'm sure the justices know the history, but showing to the american people, outlining to them in a great synopsis of our tortured american history when it comes to race, why something as modest as affirmative action was necessary. once again, you have a supreme court which i think, between the two decisions we are talking about right now and the next one, student loan forgiveness, the american people -- they will start looking at the supreme court not as judges sitting on

high and being the referee, but as political actors who don't have the interests of the majority of the american people at heart. geoff: on that point, the court striking down president biden's plan to cancel student debt for roughly 40 million people, how might that play politically, and to jonathan's point, how does it affect the legitimacy of the court? david: i wrote a column more or less endorsing giving a break on the debt, but even at that time i thought this is no way this is constitutional. there's no way the u.s. constitution thinks the united states president should sign a piece of paper and be willing to spend $400 million. the power to spend is clearly in the house. geoff: democrats had that concern initially. david: and joe biden had that concern. so i think the way it has played out, he can blame the court and he can try to use the higher

education act to go the other way. i'm not sure he can do it as ambitiously as he had, but that is fine by me. want to take especially student, that is fine by me -- focus on them, that is fine by me, because it was skewed toward people that make a lot of money. one more thing on all of these cases, the tone these justices are using against each other was introduced by scalia years ago and it is a brutalized and often personalized tone and that to me does undermine the credibility of the court. they really look like cage fighters at this point. they can render decisions but do it in a way that feels legalistic and prudent. geoff: jonathan, go ahead. jonathan: you know what, the personal tone, particularly from the liberal justices writing in the dissent, i am here for it

100%. we are not talking about arcane policies and readings of the constitution as it applies to something that applies to a very narrow set of people. we are talking about dissents that are thundering against a court that is going against started assizes stripping rights , away from people they've come to rely on -- roe v. wade, affirmative action. justice thomas signaled that griswold, lawrence and a burger felt should be overturned. so if justice sotomayor and justice jackson and the other liberals want to thunder against the six conservative justices, have at it. because that is the voice of a lot of, millions of americans

who are right now tonight as we are speaking, fearful of what other rights will go by the wayside. david: i was actually thinking of thomas going against jackson. [laughter] geoff: in the time remaining, david, you ask a question in a column, why are americans feeling so bad about an economy that is so good? the main problem is national psychology. tell us more. david: the misery index measures how well the economy is doing, usually presidents win if it is doing well. the economy is doing better than reagan won, obama, bush, clinton won. but biden is not getting the benefits. partially because we are haunted by inflation but partly we are through demoralization. we've lost confidence because of the trump years. we've become much more pessimistic and whether biden can overcome that and restore people and look around the country, a lot is going wrong but the economy is going quite

well. if he can do that, he has to win to win reelection. geoff: jonathan, i know you have an impressive rolodex of white house officials you speak to frequently. do they think they can counter this national malaise? jonathan: they are going to try. the fact they are trying to do it now more than a year out from the election tells me they are taking it seriously and they stand a chance of breaking through to the american people so that the good economic data can match up to the good feelings they hope the american people will have by november of 2024. geoff: thanks to you both. be sure to tune into "washington week" later tonight with "the newshour's" lisa desjardins for more discussion of an historic week of supreme court decisions. and watch "pbs news weekend" tomorrow. that's "the newshour" for tonight. i'm geoff bennett. thanks for spending part of your evening with us. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by -- ♪

>> moving our economy for 160 years. bnsf, the engine that connects us. ♪ >> and with the ongoing support of these individuals and institutions, and friends of the newshour, including kathy and paul anderson and camilla and george smith. the walton family foundation, working for solutions to protect water during climate change so people and nature can thrive together. the william and flora hewlett foundation. for more than 50 years, advancing ideas and supporting institutions to promote a better world.

at hewlett.org. and with the ongoing support of these individuals and institutions -- ♪ and friends of the newshour. ♪ this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. ♪ >> this is "pbs newshour west" from weta studios in washington and our bureau at the walter cronkite school of journalism at arizona state university. ♪ [captiong performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy.]

lisa: history and high stakes at the supreme court. >> is this a rogue court? pres. biden: this is not a normal court. lisa: the supreme court session closes with blockbuster rulings handing conseservatives victoris on religious rights, the president's student loan forgiveness plan and affirmative action. >> we will not be judged solely by the color of our skin. >> it is a complete misnomer to suggest this is about colorblind. it is about being blind to history. lisa: for the left, one standout win came in election law. we look at the decisions and what they mean. next. announcer: this is "washington week." corporate funding is provided b- >> for 25 years, consumer cellular's goal has been to provide wireless service that helps people communicate and

connect.