06/30/23 06/30/23 [captioning made possible by democracy now!] amy: from new york, this is democracy now! >> [indiscernible] pres. biden: this is not guts's harvard and the university of

north carolina's programs considering race in college admission are unconstitutional. but allows military academies to continue using affirmative action. we will get response from the naacp, from phyllis or prize-winning journalist maria hinojosa and professor janelle wong says affirmative action is not hurting asian americans but the myth survives. today the supreme court issues two more decisions on student debt and whether businesses with religious objections can refuse to offer their services for same-sex weddings. >> this would be the first time in the court's history, correct, that it would say that a business open to the public, that he could refuse to serve a customer based on race, sex, religion, or sexual orientation, correct? >> yes.

amy: we will look at how both of the cases brought by right-wing groups are based on questionable evidence. all that and more, coming up. welcome to democracy now!, democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman. the u.s. supreme court has declared race-conscious admissions policies at colleges and universities across the u.s. to be unlawful. thursday's landmark 6-to-3 ruling by the court's conservative majority upends decades of precedent allowing affirmative action in college admissions. writing for the majority, chief justice john roberts assailed race conscious admissions at harvard and the university of north carolina as elusive, imponderable, and opaque, ruling they violate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. the court stopped short of buying legacy admissions or ending affirmative action in military academies.

justice ketanji brown jackson, the court's first black woman justice, wrote in a dissenting opinion -- "with let-them-eat-cake obliviousness, today, the majority pulls the ripcord and announces 'colorblindness for all' by legal fiat." after headlines, we'll host a roundtable discussion on the supreme court's ruling on affirmative action. in california, a state task force has released its final report proposing reparations for the harms done to black families due to slavery, segregation, and racial discrimination. the panel is asking california lawmakers and governor gavin newsom to approve monetary compensation to black residents for mass incarceration, racist policing, housing discrimination, healthcare inequalities, and environmental racism. cheryl grills, a member of the california reparations task force, noted the report was released thursday morning just as the supreme court struck down affirmative action.

>> i would encourage the supreme court to read the interim report. i would encourage them to read the final report and to understand that the legacy of slave meant, the ongoing harms, are with us to this very day. so this country is disingenuous. first, they used race to exclude us. and now they are refusing to use race to include us. amy: the wife of supreme court justice samuel alito leased land to a fossil fuel company for oil and gas exploration around the same time the firm stood to benefit from a major environmental case before the high court. the intercept reports justice alito did not recuse himself from the case even though his family stood to profit from its outcome. alito ended up writing the 5to-4 majority opinion in sackett v.

environmental protection agency, which gutted protections for u.s. wetlands under the clean water act. at the time, martha ann bomgardner alito had an agreement with the firm citizen energy iii to earn revenue generated from any oil and gas produced on her land in oklahoma, which she inherited from her late father. this follows a bombshell report in propublica that found justice alito took an undisclosed luxury fishing vacation with republican megadonor paul singer in 2008 and then later ruled in singer's favor in several cases. singer is a major donor to the manhattan institute, a republican think-tank that supports blocking student-debt relief. members of the debt collective had demanded alito recuse himself from today's supreme court's ruling on president biden's plan to give 40 million student borrowers up to $20,000 each in debt relief.

we'll have more on debt relief and the supreme court later in the broadcast. mexico's help ministry says at least 112 people have died in the past two weeks as in unprecedented heatwave drove temperatures as high as 50 degrees celsius or more than 120 degrees fahrenheit. residents of monterey say they have been forced to limit their time outdoors. >> i work in construction and it is really bad. we hydrate with water and rest 15 minutes and then we go back to work again. we do that every hour. amy: stifling heat and community continue across texas and southeastern states where officials say extreme temperatures have killed at least 14 people. farther north, more than 100 million people are under air quality alerts again today as thick smoke from canadian wildfires drifts east. detroit, washington, d.c., new york ranked among the six worst

cities in the world for air quality this morning. forecasters predict summer lee from hazardous air over the july 4 holiday weekend. former vice president and 2024 republican presidential hopeful mike pence made a surprise visit to ukraine thursday, meeting in kyiv with ukrainian president volodymyr zelenskyy. pence's visit comes after donald trump, ron desantis, and other republican candidates suggested scaling back or halting u.s. aid to ukraine. pence said unlike his rivals, he would ensure the continued flow of weapons and ammunition. >> we will make it clear to russia, china, and any other nations in the world that would seek to read/write or national lines by force that the free world will not stand for it, the free world will stand together for freedom. amy: cnn reports the biden administration strongly considering approving the transfer of cluster munition warheads to ukraine. the weapons are banned under the convention on cluster munitions, which has been signed by u.s. allies including the u.k., france, and germany. ukraine, russia, and the united states never signed the treaty.

meanwhile, human rights watch reports it has uncovered new evidence of ukraine's indiscriminate use of banned antipersonnel landmines. russia has also laid mines, killing and injuring civilians. unlike russia, ukraine is a signatory to the 1997 ottawa treaty, which comprehensively bans antipersonnel mines. all 31 nato member states have signed the treaty except the united states. in france, over 400 people were arrested thursday as thousands of protesters took to the streets nationwide for a third consecutive day, angered by the police killing of 17-year-old nahel m. french riot police were deployed in multiple cities with violent clashes reported in the parisian suburb of nanterre, nahel's home town and where he was fatally shot tuesday after being pulled over for allegedly breaking traffic rules. nahel was an only child who was raised by a single mother. he worked as a delivery driver and was described by his

grandmother as a good, kind boy. this is karima khatim, a local official from the parisian suburb of le blanc mesnil. >> young nahel, his honor was saved next to the camera also if the camas had not been there to record, one could have many belated his profile. oh, he has already had trouble with police in the background. no, this is a 17-year-old young man who was killed by police. that should be recognized. amy: in the united kingdom, a court has ruled the british government's plan to deport certain asylum seekers to rwanda is illegal under national and international law. the decision thursday overturned a previous ruling from december that was widely condemned by human rights advocates. this is british judge ian burnett. >> there is a real risk persons sent to rwanda will be returned to their home countries where they face persecution or other inhumane treatment in fact they

have brought a claim for asylum. in that sense, rwanda is not a safe their country. amy: in iraq, hundreds of protesters briefly stormed the swedish embassy in baghdad thursday in response to the burning of a quran inside a mosque in stockholm, sweden wednesday, which marked eid al-adha, a major islamic holiday. the act drew widespread condemnation from muslims around the world. the turkish president recep tayyip erdogan warned this could pose another challenge in sweden's bid to join nato. turkey and hungary remain the only nations blocking sweden's path to nato membership. a florida jury has found former parkland school resource officer scot peterson not guilty on all 11 criminal charges he faced for allegedly failing to protect students during the 2018 mass shooting at marjory stoneman douglas high school in parkland.

17 people were killed in the massacre, another 17 were injured with wounds from the gunman's semiautomatic assault rifle. peterson faced charges of felony child neglect, culpable negligence, and perjury after video showed he remained positioned outside the school for over 40 minutes as approximately 75 gunshots went off. defense attorneys successfully argued peterson was unable to tell from which direction the shots were coming from. new york city mayor eric adams and the city council have reached an agreement on a $107 billion city budget that proposes cuts to public libraries and social and education programs for incarcerated people at the rikers island jail complex. in the final weeks of negotiations, adams vetoed a package of bills that would have expanded new york's rental assistance program, a move that was widely condemned by activists as the city faces a worsening housing crisis with over 100,000 people forced to live in shelters, including tens of thousands of asylum seekers.

on wednesday kind of -- on wednesday, adams was questioned by housing advocate jeanie dubnau during a community forum. >> [indiscernible] >> first, if you're going to ask a question, don't point at me and don't be disrespectful to me. i am the mayor of the city. treat people with the respect i am deserving. i'm speaking to as an adult. don't stand in front as if you're treating someone on a plantation you own. amy: christine king farris, the last living sibling of dr. martin luther king, jr., has died at the age of 95. she graduated from spelman college in 1948, earned two masters degrees from colombia university and played a prominent role in the selma to montgomery march for voting rights in 1965 in the march

against -- the next year. after dr. king's assassination in 1968, christine king farris established the king center for nonviolent social change along with king's widow. in a statement honoring her legacy, the center said that dr. king's older sister's life "overflowed with access, service, love, education that inspired the world for nearly a century. and those are some of the headlines. this is democracy now!, democracynow.org, the war and peace report. when we come back on the supreme court guts affirmative action, ruling harvard and the university of north carolina's programs considering race and college admissions are unconstitutional but allows military academies to continue using affirmative action. stay with us.

♪♪ [music break] amy: "assimilation" by divide

and desolve. this is democracy now!, democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman. today we spend the hour looking at the u.s. supreme court decisions that will have far-reaching implications in the lives of millions of people. we begin with the landmark ruling thursday that gutted affirmative action when it ruled harvard and the university of north carolina's programs considering race in college admissions are unconstitutional. the decision overturns long-standing precedent. the court stopped short of barring legacy admissions and will allow military academies to continue using affirmative action. writing for the majority, chief justice john roberts assailed it as elusive, imponderable, saying they violate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. kentaji brown jackson

wrote the decision is "truly a tragedy for us all." she added -- "with let-them-eat-cake obliviousness, today, the majority pulls the ripcord and announces 'colorblindness for all' by legal fiat." meanwhile, justice clarence thomas, who is now the longest-serving justice on a conservative-majority court and is african-american, sided with the majority, read his concurrence from the bench, saying -- "even in the segregated south where i grew up, individuals were not the sum of their skin color. while i am painfully aware of the social and economic ravages which have befallen my race and all who suffer discrimination. i hold out enduring hope that this country will live up to its principles so clearly enunciated in the declaration of independence and the constitution of the united states -- that all men are created equal, are equal citizens, and must be treated equally before the law." that was justice clarence thomas. during the oral arguments for this case, justice thomas questioned north carolina state solicitor general ryan park,

who represented the university of north carolina. >> i did not go to racially diverse schools, but there were educational benefits. i would like you to tell me expressly when a parent since a kid to college, they don't necessarily send them thereto have fun or feel good or anything like that, they send them there to learn physics or chemistry or whatever they are studying. so tell me what the educational benefits are. amy: this comes as pbs frontline examined justice thomas' stance on affirmative action from his time in law school to thursday's ruling. frontline reported on how thomas arrived at yale law school as one of 12 black students and interviewed his classmate, john bolton, former national security adviser. >> believed people assumed was there as a beneficiary of affirmative action, and it

grated on him. >> have this feeling of harm around these white students who feels questioned his presence at david dayen. how is it that you -- is it because of merit or because of affirmative action? amy: today we begin with a roundtable discussion on the supreme court's restriction of consideration of race in college admissions, effectively overturning decades of court precedent. wisdom cole, naacp national director of youth & college division is with us. janelle wong is the director of asian american studies and a professor of american studies and government and politics at the university of maryland. her piece for "the los angeles times" "affirmative action isn't hurting asian americans. here's why that myth survives." and maria hinojosa, pulitzer prize-winning journalist, founder of futuro media, host of latino usa. cohost of the podcast "in the thick."

we welcome you all to democracy now! wisdom cole, the supreme court has gutted affirmative action. colleges and universities -- well, not in military academies, but can you overall respond? >> this was a devastating decision. a rogue court battle down to influence that is going to impact the next generation of thought leaders and americans. in this moment in time, we need to see our colleges, universities, even corporations commit to diversity no matter what. amy: if you can talk further about the significance of this decision and what has puzzled many, that while chief justice who read the decision out for the majority said that this does not -- it cannot apply any more to colleges. this goes into effect in 2028.

25 years after affirmative action decision in 2003 that was authored by the republican supreme court justice sandra day o'connor. that this applies to colleges and universities but not to military academies? where he saw value in officer diversity, the idea of fine for the barracks but not the board room? >> the same value we have in making sure we are having diversity in military, we have to have the same value for higher education. often times higher education is the access to halls of power. we want to make sure our colleges and universities truly reflect america when it comes to diversity. we need to have some of the most diverse minds thinking about the best solutions to some of the most difficult problems we are facing in america today. if we are removing that access

in higher education, then we are not -- we're going to miss the moment. they're not going to be able to solve the problems that come our way. amy: you wrote in social media, "our future depends -- -- can you explain? >> this decision is going to have ampex for generations to come. when we think about the way some people have the options and choices to go to different colleges and universities, we should not think the gutting of affirmative action is now a push for young people to go to just hbcu's. yes, we need to highly invest in hbcu's but young people need to have options and choices to go to whatever university they want to see. it is important to understand we cannot be on a path to re-segregate higher education because that is effectively rolling that the rights that are

being fought for every single day. amy: i want to turn to janelle wong, director of asian american studies and a professor of american studies and government and politics at the university of maryland. you wrote a piece titled "affirmative action isn't hurting asian americans. here's why that myth survives." this is extremely significant for people to understand where this case came from. if you can talk about the students for fair admissions, done supposedly to stop discrimination against asian americans. >> this is an extremely disappointing ruling, special because as you say, a false narrative about an asian american penalty was used for target one essential tool, affirmative action, that helps open up doors to diversity and opportunities for education. and that is the groups suing harvard is intentionally which

asian americans to provide cover for its white supremacist agenda. there is evidence the person who brought this case edward went to an open dinner and said, i need to find an asian american plaintiff. and many asian americans, not all, but way too many, fell for the trap. civil rights lawyer mark rosenbaum gets it right. the truth is that the lower court found no evidence of racial discrimination against asian americans. not one single asian american student testified to racial discrimination. not one single asian american came forward because they were rejected due to affirmative action. it is important to keep in mind despite the headlines, the consideration of race in admissions is not banned in

totality. colleges can ask students discussed in their essays how race shapes or lives. this is permissible. it is also important the ruling applies only to the higher education context, not to other programs such as minority contracting programs. amy: i want to go to christine lee. we reached her last night. she just graduated from harvard in may. she was the head of the harvard korean association, which is one of 25 harvard student and alumni organizations that filed an amicus brief in support of college admissions policies that foster diversity. >> my name is christine lee. and a recent graduate from harvard college and former copresident of the harvard korean association. i assumed leadership of hka while the amicus brief preparations were underway with the legal defense fund through

the naacp. i feel strongly about the importance of building diverse educational environments and understanding how affirmative action played a critical role in that, but i think sing the collective efforts from other student organizations and advocating for this college was the greatest privilege. i can only speak to my own experiences as one student, an asian american woman at harvard, but i can say with full confidence that those who subscribe to the widely publicized view of what it means to "deserve a position" at an ivy league position, what it means to champion "merit-based admissions" they have not met the incredible students, especially students of color i was lucky enough to call my peers at harvard and i did not

know that gpa or test scores of every student i met, but what i did know was there unique stories, the stories they had to share, they enhanced my own life and journey in a very singular way. and i truly believe universities have something of an obligation to create rich, diverse, unique learning environments in this way. i also believe that is an obligation not only to their students and the university, but to the greater public as well. this is on my mind a lot more as a recent graduate, but i can imagine the implications that the recent supreme court decision will have reaching into the professional world as well. i can't help but feel like there is a likely danger of us

seeing fewer people of color going into academia as professors, fewer people going into medicine, law, environmental policies. i worry that those vital perspectives are in danger of being taken away, if not right away, then definitely over time. amy: you're just listening to and watching christine lee, just graduated from harvard university, former head of the harvard korean association. professor wong, really, her comments concur with the majority of asian americans in the country. a pew poll found the majority of asian americans favor affirmative action. talk more deeply about the organization is that product this lawsuit that ended up in the supreme court. >> the organization is called students for fair admissions. that organization is led by ed l

bum, who is a conservative, white male who has gone on the attack for race conscious programs beyond affirmative action. affirmative action is one of a suite of policies that seek to consider race to ensure racial equality. ed blum successfully brought a case against the shelby v. holder case which gutted the voting rights act. he has also tried to undermine immigrant voting rights. so he had brought this case -- brought a case against affirmative action to the university of texas and is key plaintiff there was abigail fisher, a white woman. when that was not successful, he purposefully sought out and asian american plaintiff again because it provides not only

cover for his white supremacist agenda, but also because asian americans, there is a narrative about asian americans facing a penalty in college admissions. that narrative is very powerful even though it was adjudicated thoroughly in the lower courts and the courts with hundreds and hundreds of pages of evidence, statistical modeling, and testimony from asian american students who supported affirmative action, that the lower courts found there was no intentional discrimination against asian american students. amy: i want to bring maria hinojosa into this discussion. chief justice john roberts said for too long universities have universities have for

too long wrongly concluded that the touchstone of an individual's identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned, but the color of their skin." you have justice sony set a mayor, the writing and dissent in the justice jackson saying, talked about deciding that -- she wrote -- let me see if i can find her quote. she said, "deeming race 11 in law does not make it so in life." your response? >> it is a historic day in our country and yet it is not shocking. in many ways as i'm listening to

reporting coming up -- this is for me -- how this second court will be valued. that is a broad structural issue, we have a country that says the supreme court does not represent us nor does it represent the majority of kenyan in the united states -- opinion in the united states. that to me is a concern because as you know, i was not born in this country. we are seeing, as you point out, the fact they are saying it is ok for the barracks, we will take our bodies and use them for war, by the way, if you are an immigrant or even undocumented, the possibilities of getting into the military -- the pathway to military is completely open. the pathway to legacy, which is essentially we are going to be honest in our country, white

supremacy. now, i am a professor. i've been in academia for a decade now. i will tell you what the data shows is that -- there's hard data. i have been college presidents, amy, who have told me we have a financial plan for the small, independent, liberal arts college in the midwest. i was like, what is your financial plan? we are making sure we get every single latino who can come here. it is a mark is a decision. it is a business decision that colleges and universities will be faced with because look at the demographic of our country. it is unsustainable if you're only guess you're only accepting white legacy students. that is not sustainable. i'm trying to break the different analysis. i understand everything, the shock of work, the rage, the

disappointment. i want to make sure our kids understand that this is not -- this cannot stop them. all of us on this call and you as a white woman, amy, we have gone through not just micro-aggression -- it makes us stronger. since understand exactly what represent in this country, what kind of country we want to have. this is a moment to organize. this is a moment to build solidarity. this is a moment to tell our younger people, you've got this. we are behind you. by the way, you have power in this conversation. do not cede your power. we need you. it is very important for me to continue to reiterate this message, do not take this as a defeat. we have been defeated so many times in this country and we're not going to give up.

cannot just give up and say, ok, affirmative action. we have to double down because the future of this country as we know, and i think this is central to this decision, is increasingly not white. that is at the core of what we're talking about. that is just data, that is the future. amy: maria hinojosa, you have been very vocal about the lack of diversity in newsrooms. after the supreme court's affirmative action decision, the award-winning journalist reveal investigate of journalist said on twitter, "universities will soon look like newsrooms." if you can respond to that? i keep playing back to this issue of john roberts saying "we are going to carve out military academies because there is value in officer diversity" and this

whole issue of that can go to the barracks but when it comes to the board room and other places in civil society in this country, they're going to stand firm, these conservative justices, and say no to affirmative action. >> it is right in front of us. we don't have to pull the wool off one's eyes. they are saying it clearly. doubling down on the question of legacy, which is legacy is fine but -- it is so clear what is happening. this is why, again, the horror of the supreme court -- i think about sonia sotomayor and ketanji brown jackson having to sit with these so-called colleagues and, yes, everybody should watch that front line documentary on clarence thomas because i understood people -- i was the first latina hired at npr. i was one of very few latinos at

barnard college where i am now a professor. i have been that one, that first one. that kind of, what are you doing here? it is just a part of my life. again, for the young people, what are you doing -- you internalize that and you say, this is part of my struggle. to be the best possible. again, i know people don't want to hear this, but that is the name of the game in the united states of america where white supremacy is trying to hold on as much as possible. for latinos and latinas, very important. this is a very important moment for their understanding of where they put their alliances. this is not -- we have to talk about this, where latinos latinas can easily identify as white because it is a privilege, this is a moment to understand solidarity and what this means for the future of our country, working together for true representation.

amy: wisdom cole, if you can talk about the kind of organizing that is going around now, i mean, with the affirmative action, you always see naacp out in front of the supreme court. you have, for example, university of california that ruled affirmative action years ago, people of color, particularly the latinx population and the black population, their representation being gutted in the uc college system. how are people organizing right now? >> i myself am a graduate of university of california santa cruz. we consistently saw less and less black folks enrolled in the universities but even those who were were not graduating. the retention level and the work necessary to ensure that young people of color, young black people was not there. we had to institute student

outreach programs where we made sure we were working to outreach to young people were interested in coming to the university but also making sure there was support on campus to ensure they stay at the university. across the nation now, we are pushing and telling diversities and colleges to commit to diversity no matter what. instituting programs that looks at debt-free college, making sure the student population is aware of what they're doing to contribute to white supremacist culture and creating a campus culture that is truly about diversity, equity, and inclusion. in this moment, young people are looking for solutions, answers. young people are scared. young people are thinking about their future, thinking about their nephews or the sisters or brothers, generations to come entering the college space in the next couple of years. in this moment, we have to set

up the structures that will allow the will not to survive on campus, but thrive. we have to do our part, making sure we working hand-in-hand with universities, making sure there is guidance, that young people are in front of the movement. amy: wisdom, what about the issue of class or income as a factor in admission? this goes directly with the decision today of the supreme court on student debt. >> we have to understand that the decision around affirmative action and around biden's student loan forgiveness programs are not mutually exclusive. if the supreme court strikes down the plan today, like i said, effectively, we are on a pathway to segregate education as we know today but also to clear the american dream step. heart education is to economic stability in this country. it is important we understand all of the factors that the two young person -- to a young

person. pathways to ensure they are successful and not barriers to deter them from the part of these institutions. we want to make sure we are promoting diversity. promoting diversity of ideology, of experience. all these things are necessary to contribute to a thriving society in america today. we have gone through so much in a past couple of years, we cannot forget all the things we learned in 2020 facing the horrors and murder of george floyd, breonna taylor, ahmaud arbery. it is a time where we are in a social awakening. we need to make sure we are promoting young people in this places and spaces to ensure they have access to the call the power. amy: wisdom cole, thank you for being with us, naacp national director of youth & college division. maria hinojosa, pulitzer prize-winning journalist, founder of futuro media. and we want to thank professor

janelle wong, professor of american studies at the university of maryland. the supreme court issues to more decisions on student debt and whether religious with religious objections can refuse to offer services for same-sex weddings. we will look at how both cases were brought by right-wing groups that are based on questionable evidence. stay with us. ♪♪ [music break]

amy: "it's money i love" by randy newman. this is democracy now!, democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman. today the supreme court issues to more decisions, including one brought by a colorado wedding website designer who once to be -- wants to be allowed to refuse service to same-sex couples. lorie smith filed the lawsuit with help from the right-wing, group alliance defending freedom. smith set a colorado law that bars businesses from refusing to sell a product to gay people is a violation of her right to free speech as someone who opposes same-sex marriage.

but new reporting shows smith never once made a wedding website and a key document in the case may be fake. for more we are joined by melissa gira grant, staff writer at the new republic. her new piece is headlined "the mysterious case of the fake gay marriage website, the real straight man, and the supreme court." ok, melissa, late it out for us. tell us what you discovered about the case the supreme court is ruling on today. >> in 2016, this website designer named lorie smith whose business is called 303 creative, she believed the colorado antidiscrimination ordinance that protects people from discrimination, among other things, from discrimination based on sexual orientation, she believed that precluded her from entering into the wedding website business. she has never created a wedding website for anybody.

including a same-sex couple. in the course of making this argument, she claims two things. one, this law meant she could not post an announcement on her website saying she would make these websites for any couple that was not in a biblical marriage that she approved of, and additionally, in a later filing in the original case in 2016, she claimed an actual same-sex couple sought to have her build a website for them. that is -- it does not seem it was a legitimate inquiry but remained in the case and up in the district court ruling that ruled against her, came up in their appeal. it has been included in filings to the supreme court and referenced by her attorneys. they said, she has had a natural inquiry. this is a case that has some relevance. but before this inquiry became a subject of debate, had not been

really reported -- amy: this is unbelievable. it is like seven years later? this case was brought in 2016. you are a general reporter and you just decide to look at the documents of this case the supreme court is now weighing. >> i am shrugging and shifting in my seat because yes, i've cover the supreme court, cases that have spent months of my life on most of this is one that came up in the course of reporting on anti-lgbtq issues. i saw this phone number and thought, let's see if this is a real inquiry. amy: you called the guy who supposedly, according to the documents, is the guy who asked her to make a website for his gay wedding. but there was a name, phone number and address, and you called the man in colorado. >> yes.

he is not in colorado. i learned that. it is a real person's name, a real person's phone number, email address, website. but when i called that real person, and it was not hard to reach him, he was a nice guy who had no idea that his information was in this case and had never heard about it from another reporter, no one had ever called him to check out the 3 -- which would suggest that the attorneys did not reach out to him to verify this. it suggests once it made it to the supreme court it was just sort of established as fact that there was a gene when inquiry. to underline, this is not the sole piece of evidence they were bringing the case on but the case itself was already about maybe someday a gay couple would ask her to make a website for them -- amy: let's be clear on this man, he is married to a woman, has a child, had no plan to gay

marriage and said never submitted in a request to this woman who does not make marriage websites to make him a marriage -- a gay marriage website? >> not at all. i looked into his background and seems edible. i have been speaking dan. he is appalled by this. he is progressive. he supports abortion rights. he does not what any part of the spotlight. he had no idea that he had been pulled into this case, that somebody posing as him pulled him into this case. amy: is there any evidence the supreme court has found what you did on tuesday? >> i have no idea, honestly. i have to give some credit to justice sotomayor who got into the nitty-gritty -- hold on, hold on, what websites are you forbidden from making, let's

look in your actual brief. it was through that question that i found this. it did not come up in oral argument. it was not a subject of back and forth in the findings i had of oral argument. i don't know this inquiry would ever have been decisive in what the supreme court decides, but for me, it is so indicative of all of the questions and concerns people have had about this, though the legitimacy of this court. amy: tell us what this group alliance defending freedom that brought this case that is now being weighed by the supreme court. >> it started in the 1990's. they are really invested in the project we would now call christian nationalism. they believe christians have a right to decide the way this country and its laws function. they are fundamentally opposed to separation of church and state. a lot of the cases came from that place. they have been very successful in getting cases before the

supreme court. people may have heard of the masterpiece cake shop case which is similar to this one. at least in that case there was an actual gay wedding and an actual gay wedding cake that was at issue. here there is no wedding, no website. it is troubling group pushing this agenda from attacking queer and trans people, behind the anti-trans laws we have seen pop up across the country the last few years. all they have to bring is fantasies of things that gay people some day may be, what does that say? about their project? what does it say about the court they are willing to entertain something that is based on something so flimsy. amy: and lower courts rejected it. melissa gira grant, staff writer at the new republic. we will link to your piece "the mysterious case of the fake gay marriage website, the real straight man, and the supreme court."

we are going to end today show looking at the other decision the supreme court is issuing today, to decide the fate of president biden's student debt relief plan. we are joined by david dayen, executive editor of the american prospect where he has a piece headlined "the student loan case's unwilling participant." talk about what you found in this other supreme court case. >> it is remarkable amount of similarity here. in the student loan case, the key issue is standing, someone injured by the fact people are getting this debt relief from the government on their student loans. the state of missouri, along with several other states, brought this lawsuit and they claim that because there's a

thing called the missouri higher education loan authority, which is a servicer -- they do the day-to-day operations on the loans -- that because they will be harmed, allegedly i'm actually they won't be harmed by because they will allegedly be harmed by losing a number of student loans for service, then because they owe the state of missouri money, they might not be able to pay it back. they are norma samantha reasons why this is problematic. -- there are enormous reasons why this is problematic. the loan fund that allegedly the missouri higher education loan party won't be able to pay back the state of missouri, they have not made a payment on it last 15 years and internal documents show they have no intention of paying into this fund. the second thing is, internal emails have shown the missouri higher education loan authority had nothing to do with this case, did not eyelet, did not

solicit it, did not know it was happening i did not know they were being used as a substitute for staining for the state of missouri until they read about it in the news reports. there internal emails before -- between employees saying we were opposed this meant that we could not do anything about it. the missouri state attorney general needed to -- made to claim our borrowers were harmed. so they could have standing in the case. a real similarity. we talk about the supreme court's corruption in terms of going on junkets and things like this, but maybe a deeper correction is the fact they seem to not check the basic facts in these various cases in their ruling on things that aren't legitimate in some way. amy: how are they not being fact

checked? >> i mean, it really -- amy: talk about how you found it. >> it was through state sunshine laws, missouri higher education loan authority -- amy: it is called -- >> estate instrumentality and they in fact -- the only way the state of missouri could get information from it is they had to use state sunshine laws to extract that information. advocates of the student borrower protection to the same thing, looking up whether they were talking about this case and they found this trench of emails that show they had nothing to do about it and then one case, one employee asked, we involved in this case? are we the bad guys is the direct quote the employee makes?

it is situation where by the time it gets to the supreme court, they sort of assume facts, as melissa said, they assume facts as legitimate but in this case, if the court in fact rules to deny 43 million borrowers, reduction in the loan balances, they will be doing it based on a standing argument on behalf of a plaintiff that was a complete unwilling participant in this case most of america if the does rule that way, can president biden still cancel student debt? >> a lot of advocacy groups say the president could use other means -- right now they're using the authority granted under something called the heroes act, of emergency like the pandemic to ensure that borrowers are not made worse by those -- but that

situation. they could also use the act is five higher education act to reduce loan balances. it remains to be seen if the supreme court slaps down the president, whether he would be willing to use another authority to try to do it in a different way. amy: david dayen, i want to ask about another scotus point for people not familiar, scotus is the supreme court of the united states. as we reported today in headlines, the wife of supreme court justice samuel alito leased land to a fossil fuel company for oil and gas exploration around the same time the firm stood to benefit from major environment ok's before the high court. the intercept has just reported justice alito did not recuse himself from the case even know his family stood to profit from the outcome and he ended up writing the five to four majority opinion in a case which

gutted protections for u.s. weapons under the clean water act. at the time, his wife had an agreement with the firm citizens energy to earn revenue from any oil and gas produced on her land in oklahoma, which she inherited from her father. of course, this following the bombshell report that found justice alito took this undisclosed luxury fishing vacation with republican megadonor paul singer in 2008, then later ruled in singer's favor in several cases. singer, major donor to the manhattan institute, the republican think tank that supports blocking student that relief most of embers of the debt collective demanding alito recuse himself from today's supreme court ruling on president biden's plan to give 40 million student borrowers up to $20,000 each and debt relief. your response to these latest revelations, which, of course,

follow the revelations around clarence thomas and his relationship with the billionaire donor harlan crow? >> the fact is the supreme court is really a rogue institution. it is an example of self-regulation. justices decide on their own whether or not to recuse the documents they file, while journalists can scrutinize those documents and maybe find other cases where they did not disclose certain gifts or other personal financial windfalls, there's basically no sanction for it. these are lifetime appointments. this is what arrogance looks like in manifested form. there is nothing much that the public can do about it except bring pressure to bear. and i think some of the rulings

that we have seen this year, which have been a little more moderate, could be a result of the the crisis at the heart of the supreme court and good that journalists and other people are paying more attention to this circumstance, but it is really frustrating. and can we will continue to follow all of these issues. david dayen, executive editor of the american prospect. his piece we will like to, -- we will link to "the student loan , case's unwilling participant." tune in monday and tuesday to our holiday specials. on monday, we will be bringing you the voice of the late, great daniel ellsberg, the whistleblower. on tuesday, we will bring you james earl jones reading frederick douglass' "what to the slave is your fourth of july?" and other voices of the people of the history of the united states. happy birthday to isis phillips!

democracy now! is looking for feedback from people who appreciate the closed captioning. e-mail your comments to outreach@democracynow.org or mail them to democracy now! p.o. box 693 new york, new york 10013. [captioning made possible by democracy now!]