>> hello, you made it to friday. we have a big show just ahead. it is about 10:00 eastern. i'm ana cabrera reporting from new york, and we're staying on top of breaking news at the supreme court. yet again today, any moment now we will get the final cases of an already monumental court term, tens of millions of americans will learn today if their student loans will be forgiven. the justices will also rule on a major case involving lgbtq+ rights and free speech on the last day of pride month. all this after the court gutted affirmative action in college admissions yesterday. we've seen this court fundamentally shift the way we live in this country and it may be on track to do so again. let's start at the court with nbc use julia ainsley. julia, what's the sense of anticipation like at the court this morning on this last day of the term with these two big cases still pending?

>> reporter: there's certainly more people out here today than we've seen in days past, especially because today we know exactly what we will get decisions on because it's the last day. you mentioned those two big cases, of course at the end of pride month. that case that has to do with whether or not a web designer can refuse to design a wedding website for a gay couple. we could see some reaction to that. the biggest one we're watching for is on student loans, whether or not biden's student loan forgiveness program will stand. the biden administration was using a congressional act started after 9/11 in 2003. it was continued through the pandemic, even invoke bid betsy devoss under the trump administration. can student loans be forgiven in their entirety forever? this would affect about 43,000 people, sorry, we're starting to get some decisions just in now. so i'm going to go listen for what those are, and i said 43,000, that's 43 million

people, and i'll be back to you when we learn more. >> sounds good because we want to get the news as soon as possible. as we await the rulings here, let's bring in our panel, ken gee she know is a professor of constitutional law at nyu law school, and melissa marie is an nyu professor of law. also with us is kimberly atkins stohr, boston globe columnist. i wonder does yesterday's big decision on affirmative action give us any clues as to what we can expect in these two big cases today? >> i just think that we're seeing a super majority, the 6-3 court that decided yesterday's case, and so as my colleague melissa murray likes to say, this does seem to be like the yolo court. i think we can expect big decisions today as well. >> we have confirmed now we got the case 303 creative. this is involving a web designer who wants to a wedding website but not serve gay couples, so

now let's go back to julia ainsley with the details. >> reporter: that's right, this was a 6-3 gorsuch decision. the court siding with the web designer saying that she can refuse service to a gay couple for their wedding website design. it's unclear now, we're still reading through it, to see how this is different from other issues that have come before the supreme court like a cake maker, for example, who refused to provide a wedding cake for a gay couple. this issue came down to free speech because of the website. we're seeing how they're able to draw differences of why a wedding website would be different from a wedding cake. again, still reading through. for now they are siding with that web designer saying it is okay to refuse her services to a gay couple for her wedding website. that decision was authored by justice gorsuch. >> your reaction, kenji. >> i see it's a 6-3 decision.

i will try to answer the question of how it's different from the masterpiece cake shop case, which was in 2018. really importantly this is a free speech case rather than a free exercise case. one thing that we do already know is when you talk to free exercise to free speech, the exemptions can potentially be much broader. two ways in which free speech exemptions differ, they can be asserted against anyone. prior limitations in the free exercise cases that say you can't use religious reasons to discriminate against racial minorities. that restriction would potentially not pertain a free speech context. one of the things we celebrate about the free speech jurisprudence is we protect even the speech we hate. so a web designer could say i'm not going to make a website for an interracial couple, and that could potentially be okay. >> i wonder about other goods and services and the use of free speech to put a sign on the door

saying i don't want to serve somebody. melissa, let me bring you into the conversation, get your thoughts on this ruling. it is interesting. this was about an antidiscrimination law in colorado versus free speech rights. it wasn't having to do necessarily with religious rights here. and again, justices deciding for the web designer. >> yeah, that's exactly right, and kenji has explained it beautifully. free speech, there is a much broader range of exemptions you can offer individuals. this follows on the heels of dobbs last term where justice thomas noted he would be willing to consider -- >> i've got to interrupt you, melissa, forgive me. we are going to laura jarrett with more information right now after she's been reading through this decision. laura.

>> a major decision for states across the country that have antidiscrimination laws like colorado trying to enforce them, but in this case, the high court in a divided ruling has ruled in favor of lori smith, that graphic designer, who as you mentioned says that she wants to make wedding websites, but she hasn't actually made any thus far. but she says she fears being fined under colorado's law, which applies to all public accommodations, which says as long as you're holding your business out to the public, you have to treat everybody the equally. which means you can't discriminate on the basis of someone's sexual orr yen taegs. in this case, they say that violates her right to free speech. she has said in interviews that she's actually happy to make other types of websites for gay individuals. it's not just that she doesn't want to discriminate, but in particular when it comes to marriage, that's something opposes. this is a court that has largely ruled in favor of those who have

made religious freedom type of arguments before. we should note, this is a different type of case. this is on first amendment grounds. it doesn't depend on the fact that she has a religious objective to it. she could have objected to it for any reason as long as it's about her free speech. one of the things we're going to be looking for is where is the line? how does the court decide that she as an artist has that right? but what about a florist? what about a wedding caterer? those are typically businesses open to the public that cannot discriminate, and one of the things that certain liberals on the court brought up is how are you supposed to handle a situation in which somebody decides they don't want to serve an interracial couple, in other words discriminating on the basis of race. everyone gets their arms around that situation and can say that doesn't seem like that would pass muster under the constitution. how is it different in the case of somebody who wants to discriminate on the basis of

sexual orientation versus race? that's one of the things we're now going to be looking for. the major headline here is that the high court has ruled in her favor, and now we'll see what happens next. savannah. >> okay. our thanks to laura jarrett. we were simulcasting with our network nbc, hence the delay on the front end. we really wanted to hear from laura because she's been studying so much on this. she's a lawyer herself. she gave us what she knows about the decision. some of my guests have had a chance to look through at least a few pages. i do want to bring in and add to our conversation the president and ceo of glad, sarah kay ellis. thank you so much for coming in here. give us your reaction to this ruling. >> i think this is license to discriminate at the highest court. i think this is a pattern we've been seeing with the supreme court where they're taking away rights instead of broadening rights for marginalized communities. we saw it yesterday, we saw it last year with roe v. wade for

women. now we're seeing it against the lgbtq community. so we're seeing a pattern. we're part of it. where does this stop? so what business can now deny myself and my wife access when we walk in. and i think they've left that really broad. i haven't read the decision yet, but from the top line analysis of it, i think that this is an open license to discriminate against lgbtq people in america, which this court has signaled they want to roll back marriage. they want to attack the lgbtq community, and this is their first step in doing so. >> you had a chance, kenji to look through some of the decision at this point. does any of this stand out, can you talk to us about how narrow this decision is or how broad it is. >> i don't want to say anything definitive but it does appear justice gorsuch is putting it within the compelled affirmation line of cases. you can't force somebody to assay the pledge of allegiance,

you can't force somebody to put live free or die on their license plate. that actually potentially makes this more broad rather than narrow because what sotomayor is pointing out in her oral argument was, you know, this is actually the first time we've complied compelled affirmations to antidiscrimination laws, saying this law puts words into my mouth. what gorsuch is saying here is that we don't really care about that. what we care about is we're acknowledging this is an extension, but essentially he's saying i actually subscribe to this theory that an antidiscrimination law forces me to serve a same-sex couple as somebody's engaged in expressive conduct that that is a compelled affirmation. >> gorsuch writes, 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. melissa murray, you clerked for then judge sotomayor who wrote the dissent in this case. she's now justice sotomayor. and she writes today the court for the first time in its history grants a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class. how significant and potentially breathtaking and broad-based could this ruling be? what kind of ripple effect could we see? >> i think this is a massive decision. again, kenji is right, it's unprecedented for the court to use its compelled speech doctrine to apply to circumstances like this when we're dealing with public accommodations laws. these laws are rife throughout the country. many jurisdictions have them as a means of ensuring that individuals are not subject to discrimination in the conduct of their daily lives and in commerce, and this would basically be a license for individuals to decide based on

their own moral beliefs or conscience, they don't want to serve certain groups. there really is no limiting principle that i can see. i want to connect this back to last term in dobbs where justice thomas in his concurrence noted that he would be willing to reconsider a wide range of decisions including o'berg that will versus hodges. we haven't seen any imminent assaults on obergefell, once you have acknowledged that individuals have a right to discriminate against lgbtq ia couples in the workplace, in public accommodation, you're pretty much on your way to ensuring that we are normalizing discrimination. roe versus wade and overturning it was a 50-year project. this could be the beginning of a 50-year project that culminates in overruling obergefell versus hodges as justice thomas desired. this is a court that is drunk on its own power.

it's a 6-3 conservative super majority, and they're basically doing what they want. laura jarrett mentioned this was a woman who hasn't actually been asked to provide a website to any gay couple. the court didn't have to take this case. it's not clear that there was jurisdiction to take this case, but it is nonetheless issued this broad and breathtaking ruling that will dramatically change public life for millions of couples. >> i do want to underscore that point. it was unique that this was a sort of hypothetical put out there. this web designer had not refused service. she expressed interest in moving her web design company into weddings, and didn't want to serve same-sex couples because of her religious beliefs. but again, saying she is a creator, that this is all free speech, and so given it was a hypothetical case here, sarah, do you think that makes a difference in terms of how you interpret this ruling? >> i think it proves out two things.

one, is that there is a coordinated effort around disseminating and attacking the lgbtq community. this was funded by an organization called the adf, which is the alliance defending freedom who is an anti-lgbtq organization. so they found her and built this case that is now the supreme court is deciding on. it doesn't even exist. it's engineered. it's an engineered case. secondly, it doesn't reflect what the american people think, feel, or want. this supreme court is completely out of step with the american population. 91% of americans believe that lgbtq people shouldn't be discriminated against. so they're not reflecting the views of the country of where this country wants to go. they're pulling us back into the old stone ages as opposed to progressing us forward. >> do you worry about obergefell now being revisited and the idea

that same-sex marriage, which is a right across the country given in 2015 celebrated after that supreme court ruling, that that can be put back in a box? >> the rights of my life and my wife and our two 14-year-old children are decided by nine supreme court justices. whether or not we can move about this country in a free and equal way. i am very concerned about obergefell. that's why we moved the respect for marriage act through congress in the fall of last year. that still has holes in it, though. that is not perfect. it's progress but not perfection, and i think that obergefell, clarence thomas said it. i mean, how much more do you need? he actually said what he was thinking, which is i'm coming for obergefell. put your gloves on because we want to take that right away from you. >> i want to read another quote

from justice gorsuch. he writes, tolerance, know coercion is our nation's answer. the first amendment envisions the united states as a are rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands. >> i think tolerance is what you do for a toothache, not for human beings. as we continue to be politicized in this country as people, and we're just human beings that want to live our lives in a free and equal manner. and so i think when you start to dissect us into tolerate, if i need to be tolerated as a person, i think that is already creating a second class citizen version of me in this country and my community. >> stand by and stay with me. i do want to bring in kari severino, another legal voice, president of judicial crisis network, a conservative advocacy o. she's also a former clerk to supreme court justice clarence thomas. kari, first, your reaction to

this ruling? >> yeah, i think this is another example of this court being very strong on freedom of speech. i was glad that they were able to make the distinction here between endorsing beliefs and allowing someone to speak those beliefs, and i think in many ways, actually, you know, i recognize contrary to what some of the other guests have believed, but this case really does bring out the promise of justice kennedy's words in obergefell that people who have sincere religious beliefs can continue to advocate with the utmost sincere conviction, that by divine precept same-sex marriage should not be condoned. it's actually giving meaning to the words that are there. there's a difference between forcing someone to speak and not being willing serve someone. laurie smith said she's happy to make websites for same-sex

individuals, for anyone, but she won't make websites for heterosexual marriages or same-sex marriages on things she disagrees with. what if there was a website who wanted to celebrate someone whose marriage began through an adulterous affair, would you be willing to do that. it's not about that particular class, it's about a broader question. can she be forced to speak through her designs in ways that she fundamentally disagrees with. >> the colorado antidiscrimination law that was on the other side of this that was being challenged would require her to create a message that's consistent with her religious beliefs. in fact, colorado's argument she's saying is that it wouldn't allow her to create a message that was consistent. but colorado's argument is that smith could include biblical quotes, reflecting her views on marriage for anyone website she creates. the law only required that whatever product she sold is

available to everyone, right? so i guess i'm just trying to understand how is she harmed by this law? if she can still put her own personal beliefs on her product? >> i would struggle to imagine that a couple -- again, whether it's a heterosexual couple with a marriage that was started in adultery and she included biblical quotes about how marriage is for life and that god has joined, let no man separate, i feel like they would not accept that as a product, similarly if he put a biblical quote condemning homosexuality on a same-sex wedding website. that's not really providing the same product they're asking for. that would have been an interesting e test case if you provided that and said, yes this is my speech, but at the end of the day, i think it's pretty clear what -- there's a lot of, you know, web designers out there. there's no shortage of people who would love and feel honored and excited about creating this website. we can have an opportunity to

live and let live. you don't have to force someone to violate their beliefs in order to have yours celebrated. i'll point out another example justice barrett gave. she said what "the new york times" in its famous wedding, you know, pages said for five months we're only going to put same-sex marriages. could they do that legally? and colorado said, no, they can't. she said, what if you have a gay newspaper like "the washington blade" where this is their whole message, this is their point, and they said we only want to accept wedding announcements for same-sex or queer relationships, can they do that, and colorado said not under their laws. that is outrageous. these os are entitled, just like laurie smith is to have their perspective and we're going to have perspectives on all sides of this issue. that's what makes america great. >> the law in colorado defines discrimination not only as refusing to provide goods and services but publishing any communication that essentially says an individual's patronage

is unwelcome based on a protected characteristic. could this ruling in laurie smith's favor open the door to other types of businesses refusing services to customers. could a restaurant owner put up a sign and deny service to customer because of the color of their skin citing free speech? >> absolutely not because a restaurant is not speech. and laurie smith herself is not refusing services to people on the basis of their class. if a same-sex couple came and said we want a website about selling our house or we want a website advertising our business or something, she's absolutely happy to do that. this is not because of their class. similarly, if a heterosexual couple said -- and we want it said we want a website celebrating some aspect of anything that she disagrees with, she's not willing to take that. it doesn't have to do with the person. it has to do with the message. this is why some of these theories of what if someone would refuse blacks at a lunch counter again, that's utterly

unrelated to this case. that has nothing to do with speech. that actually did have to do with the color of the person's skin. this is something that's very different. it's limited to speech. that's why it's a free speech case. it's limited to people who are bringing a message. and again, laurie smith is happy to give a whole range of messages for same-sex attracted individuals. she's not happy to do messages that celebrate a particular messages that she disagrees with on the basis of her religion. >> carrie severino, i do appreciate your perspective on all of this. i think it's important to get all the different perspectives. i have some people here who i know want to respond as well. thank you so much for joining us i saw you reacting alongside me, kenji, what did you make of that argument she just put forward. >> i was really puzzled by her statement that obergefell is consistent with this because alito during oral argument tried to make that claim but was overridden by gorsuch in this opinion. alito was saying in obergefell

kennedy said good and honorable people can disagree about same-sex marriage. we don't have that in the context of interracial marriage in loving versus virginia. gorsuch ice opinion saying the glory of the first amendment is a capacity to deal with speech we hate. i noticed that she pivoted in the number of ways and saying, oh, this doesn't pertain to somebody at a lunch counter. this doesn't pertain to a wedding web designer who doesn't want to do a wedding for a couple that was polygamist or what have you. what about the web designer who says i do not cater and make messages or websites for interracial couples, right? because that actually falls, you know outside of both of her exceptions, and it's squarely protected under this holding, that i could say i'm a christian web designer. i don't believe in interracial marriages so therefore i'm not going to design a website for you. the idea that that international couple or same-sex couple could

go to another vendor mistakes the nature of the injury. the nature of the injury, when people were being denied service a the lunch counters, the idea that there would be another lunch counter that would serve black individuals would be totally irrelevant. the harm is in the refusal and the lack of respect for dignity in a public sphere when a business is opening itself to everyone but you and calling it public accommodation. >> let me read more from justice sotomayor's dissenting opinion. she writes, the first amendment does not entitle petitioners to a special exemption from a state law that simply requires them to serve all members of the public on equal terms. the first amendment like wise does not exempt petitioners from the law's prohibition on posting a notice that they will deny goods or services based on sexual orientation. let's me bring in kimberly atkins stohr to weigh in on this as well. your thoughts on what we just heard from carrie severino and this argument from justice

sotomayor. (. >> yeah, so first of all, i agree that this -- let's put it this way. this is a free speech, but what it is essentially doing is expanding the free religious exercise realm of constitutional law in a way that sort of uses speech as a venue, so what sotomayor points out is what it was objecting to is creating same-sex marriage websites because she herself believes that same-sex marriage is, quote, false. that is dangerous because same-sex marriage is legally protected and constitutionally protected in this country. so to say that i'm not going to serve someone who are part of a protected class i think is particularly dangerous. and there is no limiting principle here as we have already discussed. this does not if the law prohibits saying to someone, if

you are a same-sex couple we're not going to give you service, if saying that that is speech, that sign is speech, that is part of this big loophole that has been blown into the antidiscrimination law in colorado as well as those that exist this other states. the last time we had a case similar to this involving a wedding cake creator it was decided on very narrow grounds that did not create precedent. i don't see how someone could not make the argument that making a wedding cake is an expression. it is free speech to design something that represents someone's wedding and that they can say they can deny someone that kind of service as well. i think it blows huge holes into antidiscrimination laws that we rely on throughout this country to protect the rights of people, and i think that is what's so dangerous about it. >> justice sotomayor is still reading her dissent, and i

should remind everybody we are awaiting the decision in the student loan forgiveness plan case as well. this is another quote, today is a sad day in american constitutional law and in the lives of lgbt people. the supreme court of the united states declares that a particular kind of business, though open to the public, has a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class. the court does so for the first time in its history. melissa, what do you think this does to the legitimacy of the supreme court. we already know that the supreme court has hit record low approval with the american public, has the lowest public confidence rating on record. where does it go from here? >> well, when you have six, ana, they let you do what you like. this is a court that is unrestrained by congress, unrestrained by any rules. it has no recourse with regards

to its ethics violations. it's free to be sponsored by billionaires and to go off on jaunts when this term is over with the billionaires of their choice, and the american people really have no recourse here. this is a court that does what it likes, and it has been very clear about this, certainly since last term. it has no recourse in terms of abiding by precedent. it is very clear yesterday in the decision on affirmative action that it was not willing to abide way 20-year settled precedent on diversity in higher education. it was not willing to abide by roe versus wade and planned parenthood versus casey. we are basically being governed by six individuals who have decided that they disagree with everything that has come before and that they know better. last year in dobbs, the court says it was overruling roe versus wade and returning the abortion question to the states for democratic deliberation. but there's nothing to be said in this decision today about the democratic deliberation that underwrote colorado's antidiscrimination law. that was a law that the people

of colorado in a democratic fashion determined was something that they wanted to abide by. they wanted to make public accommodations and businesses open to all comers. and the court here today says that the people don't matter. their wishes don't matter in that respect, and instead, one website designer can decide who she serves and when and can determine what kind of equality gay couples in colorado experience. >> kenji, i wonder is it normal for us to have this lengthy reading of the opinions and the dissents from the bench, or is this unique to these big controversial cases? >> yeah, definitely the latter, the big controversial cases get this kind of air time, and it's clear that justice sotomayor in particular is impassioned today as so she was yesterday in dissent. i'm looking at elena's dissent, she talks about how -- every time you cut off a head, two more grow in its place.

that's what we're seeing in the lgbtq+ context. every time, you know, the lgbtq+ movement sort of takes a step forward, then it gets pushed back another step because discrimination morphs into a different form. i also if i may want to respond to another thing that my friend on the other side, carrie severino was saying how anyone can assert this. the anti-gay person has free speech rights and the pro-gay person has free speech rights and they sort of cancel each other out. but in this context the supreme court has been using free speech against antidiscrimination laws. if you have a deregulatory vision that's going to leave the prior status quo in place. if the prior status quo was a discriminatory flow, this free speech is going to have deep ramifications for inequality. >> doesn't the free speech clause allow the government to impose some reasonable

restrictions as to the time, place, or manner of protected speech? so does that, this ruling conflict and potentially change now going forward how other people and other cases potentially use the free speech clause? >> not necessarily because this is a pretty narrow trench of first amendment doctrine about compelled affirmation. it might pertain to things like yelling fire in a crowded theater. it wouldn't necessarily carry over to that particular context. the real restriction here, right, is that you can -- government can place restrictions on place. it has a compelling interest in regulating that speech, right? but here what the court seems to be saying is there isn't a compelling governmental interest in ending discrimination. not just for the lgbt individuals but also with regard to racial minorities. if government says we believe that there's a compelling governmental interest, and even though alito seems apathetic to

this, today's decision seems to erect a bulwark. no, no, no, speech is for everybody. we protect the speech that we hate. racially protected, racially offensive speech is protected. the last thing i'll say on this is going back to masterpiece cake shop, it's a really interesting concurrence that seems salient where thomas writing with gorsuch joining, said there's a strong free speech claim and that the free speech claim cannot be kind of -- even though it's not at issue in the masterpiece cake case by issues like the come peming governmental interest in restricts race. if you're going to allow individuals to burn a 25 foot cross, which is a prior case, on free speech grounds, why on earth could you not allow an individual to exercise a compelled affirmation case on the basis of race. >> it seems like a slippery

slope. a new can of worms has been opened up potentially. let's bring in california democratic congressman robert garcia. he is the first openly gay immigrant to serve in congress. he cochairs the house equality caucus. congressman, you were at new york's pride celebration just this past weekend. your reaction to today's decision and what it means for your community. >> i mean, look, this is horrible. it's a terrible decision. i wish i was surprised. i was hoping, i guess, for a miracle to happen, but what we have is an extremist supreme court that is looking at rolling back our rights. we've seen this time and time again, obviously we've seen it now with dobbs and with access to women's health care. this is a devastating ruling for the lgbtq+ community. we just spent a month celebrating trying to uplift pride in already a very dark time for this community where you have attacks happening on our community every day in congress, in state legislatures, and to have this happen by a

true, extreme activist court to roll back a key protection against discriminating our community, is shameful. i think this is a very dark day for our community. >> congressman, you were one of 13 members of congress out of 535 who are openly members of the lgbtq+ community according to pew research center, and you've talked about how your community feels under attack. what are you and your colleagues doing to prioritize lgbtq rights, especially given today's decision? >> i mean, i think a couple of things. first, we've got to be crystal clear about what happened. we have an activist supreme court installed by donald trump and mitch mcconnell, when we elect extremists like donald trump to the presidency, we are going to get extremist courts. the very first thing that we need to do is ensure that we continue to push and ensure that we elect people that are going to elect fair courts. that are going to push forward.

there is no question that this needs to happen. this idea that this supreme court is going to rule and continue to roll back rights for the next few decades is not bearable to our community. we have to push within the congress to pass legislation like the equality act to get rid of discrimination in our workplaces. i also don't want to minimize what just happened. the supreme court is essentially saying that gay people that lgbtq+ people are second class citizens and people can discriminate against our community. one-third of these appointees have been put in place by donald trump, and i agree with the minority. i agree with justice sotomayor who has given really a impassioned defense of her position of our position as a community, and so we've got to pass legislation. but you know, i've been saying we are still in our last day of pride month. pride is a protest. we have got to get out there and demand our rights be restored. >> congressman, thank you so much for joining us.

i really appreciate it. i'm going to pivot now to this new decision. we're just getting a ruling on the student loan forgiveness plan. this particular case, there are two cases, one involving six states that sued and then another case that was brought by two students. and i believe it's the students specifically that we are now getting their case and their reaction. before we have that, we're having julia read over the decision. as soon as she's ready, guys, let me know, and we will go to her. as we sort of get ready for her report, kenji, what do you -- she's ready. julia, take it away. what can you tell us? >> reporter: so in the first case, those borrowers who challenged the biden administration, the court court said they don't have standing. but now we are getting the second piece of this, where the court has said the biden administration plan to forgive federal student loans does not hold up. they are blocking that. they're agreeing with the lower court that that was not within

their congressional authority. this is the case brought by the state saying that the people who were servicing the loans from within the states would be harmed by the student loan forgiveness plan. so yes, the borrower did not have standing here. the court is saying the states do. for now, that looks like the biden administration student loan plan is on hold. i need to read in and figure out if it's just the way they went about that plan or if there's really nothing they can do and they simply don't have the authority. i'll get back to you as soon as we get more details. >> come back to us, thank you, julia ainsley. this is a plan that impacts tens of millions of americans. it was estimated to cost somewhere in the realm of $400 billion. that price tag could have played a pivotal role in how the justices viewed the biden administration's authority here. melissa murray, i'll go to you first on this one. your reaction. >> well, this is not exactly a surprise.

this is a court that has exhibited its antipathy for the administrative state time and time again. here the court seems to be saying that under the heroes act, which is that act passed in the wake of 9/11, congress never anticipated that the heroes act would be used for emergency situations such as this where we had a massive global health crisis and the government decided it would be plausible and prudent for the economy to forgive student loans. it's basically suggesting in the future if congress does make these laws that authorizes the executive to act in emergency situations, it has to be extremely specific about what types of emergencies the executive can respond to. and so, again, that really requires a kind of clairvoyance that congress typically doesn't have, and it really makes it difficult for congress to write broad statutes that could be applied in a wide number of circumstances. here the court seems to be saying that the biden administration exceeded the bounds of the heroes act in acting in this way to forgive

student loans in its entirety. this was not a surprise. this goes back to this question of jurisdiction and standing. in the first case involving the two student borrowers, the court said there was no injury, no standing and it lacked jurisdiction to review and hear this case. but the same argument could be made here. these were arguments brought by states, and it wasn't clear that the states themselves had been injured by the federal government's decision to forgive student loans. and the court says in a very narrow way that one state, missouri, has a nonprofit corporation that administers student loans and for that reason, missouri through the student loan corporation mow he la has been injured. it seems like a very thin read on which to hang jurisdiction, but it's enough for this court to enter and then decide this case on very broad administrative law grounds. >> and julia has more for us that she continues to read through the decision, julia, what more are you learning? >> reporter: well, remember i said it was an open question whether or not the court would find that the biden

administration simply violated the way they went about this, if that would mean that they said you didn't follow the administrative procedures act, maybe go back, get comment, refine it, and we'll hear it again. no, actually, they're saying that the secretary of education doesn't have the authority to forgive $430 billion in student loans. the biden administration looked to the heroes act, that 2003 congressional approval to forgive student loans temporarily under certain emergencies. they're saying and i'm reading from the majority opinion saying that the secretary asserts that the heroes act grants him the authority to cancel $430 billion of student loan principle, it does not. the act allows the secretary to, quote, waive or modify existing statutory or regulatory provisions available to financial assistance programs under the education act, not to rewrite a statute from the ground up. so there you have it, they are categorically knocking down this huge plan that would have

significantly reduced debt for 43 million people and wiped it away for about 20 million americans, and that is no longer. >> ken, how big of a blow is this to president biden, given this was a campaign promise he was trying to enact through this program? >> yeah, it's a big blow politically and legally for the biden administration, as you mentioned. this was an important campaign promise that he made that helped to motivate a lot of young people who are really feeling the burden of student loan debt. they go to college. they do what they're told is the right thing to to, and they graduate unable to buy homes, start their lives, start businesses, and they're saddled with the kind of debt that ruins their credit for much of their young lives. it's a major blow to those students. but it's also an expansion of the way the executive power has increasingly come under attack as melissa pointed out.

mohela this student loan servicer did not bring this action. they did not participate in this action at all. this was states looking to find a way to challenge it, and they got in through that initial procedural door of standing by using this other organization as a proxy. that is an expansion of the way that executive actions are being challenged in a way. the students themselves couldn't bring this, but the state was allowed to do it in that way, and really restricting the way that statutes are read to find the absolute minimum executive authority to act under them is something that this court is increasingly doing. next term there's going to be a case that really could strip away something called chevron deference, which is the amount that federal agencies themselves can interpret their own rules. this is part and parcel of that step to really disseminaing the

administrative stave, reducing the power of the executive branch in a way that is really incredible. >> kenji, the biden administration argued that they did have this emergency power authority. and there was precedent after 9/11, and in fact, congress had reaffirmed the heroes act, expanded it in 2003. congress, the legislature also made it permanent in 2007. so i'm just -- i'm not understanding why it didn't apply here? >> right, and so the court as i scan the opinion is taking a very literalist, you know, vision of the heroes act. so the heroes act in 2003 says uses the words waive or modify, and cancellation is seen to go beyond sort of waive or modify, right, in the court's view of canceling this debt. i think it's the kind of bridge too far kind of argument. i want to say a couple of things on that. the solicitor general coming in for the government did an amazing job during argument in

saying the real sort of key provision of the heroes act is emergency. if there's an emergency you get to waive or modify. >> waive to me seems like a very broad word. an oral argument there's a lot of back and forth whether modify, quoted justice scalia saying i suppose the french resolution might have been said to modify the code in france. that would be a stretch of that word. waive is a very broad word. it it's a little bit confounding. finally on this point of president biden kind of failed here, president biden did his job. i'm hoping that the american people can look at this and say we know where to put the blame for the failure of this $430 billion of loan forgiveness. it's not the president's fault, it's the court's fault. >> let's see what the american people think. shaq brewster is following reaction getting the thoughts and words and just overall sentiment from people in

chicago. you've been talking to those impacted, those waiting for this decision. what have you been hearing? >>. >> reporter: i've been covering this for a couple of years at this point, going back to before biden announced this program and the calls for many people in the progressive base for biden to act and take this executive action. one person who i've been in contact with for a long time just texted me saying, oh, what a horrible day. and that's the feeling you're getting from people who were calling for this, who are relying on this program. that person i'm referring to, she told me that she initially had $110,000 in debt. she got it down to 30,000. she would have qualified for $20,000 worth of forgiveness. so she said if this program were to go through, it would have been life changing for her. but one thing that polling shows is that there's a pretty stark guide on how general americans feel about this program overall. there's not a broad consensus one way or the other.

opponents have been telling me it's a matter of -- they just don't think it's fair for the government to waive the debt of others, especially if they paid their own college debt, especially if they made decisions not to go to college or jump into a career because of the cost of college. i want you to listen to those arguments from folks i've been talking to over the past week. as we've been previewing this decision, we knew this was coming from the supreme court in terms of an overall decision. listen to how folks told me they're dissecting this and looking ahead to what they were -- what the court was ultimately going to rule. listen here. >> i want to pay it back. i want to feel like i own that, but i know for other people it's a little bit tighter situation. so everybody's a little different. i'm okay with paying it back. >> it's hard to get out of that cycle where you have this like generational poverty, generational wealth, and it continues with the kansas of education being almost like unattainable, and so i think i'm for forgiving people's student

loans. >> reporter: the question now is that when folks have to start repaying their loans in october, will they blame the president, or will they blame the court who has now struck down the president's forgiveness program, ana. >> shaq brewster in chicago for us, thank you for that sampling of reaction from people who were hoping to have their loans forgiven. we're getting some of the quotes now from justice roberts' opinion, the chief justice writing this one and saying, quote, comprehensive debt cancellation plan is not a waiver because it augments and expands existing provisions. it is not a modification because it constitutes effectively the introduction of a whole new regime. when the secretary seeks to add to existing law, the fact that he has waived certain provisions does not give him a free pass to avoid the limits inherent in the power to modify. let's go to our white house correspondent monica alba now. what's the reaction from the biden administration and the president himself?

>> reporter: well, ana, as you can expect, this an enormous setback for this president and this administration and a campaign promise and something that they were hoping was going to be critical, especially for young voters heading into the 2024 election. but i can tell you now checking in with sources insides white house on their reaction that it is one of vowing to fight back saying that the president is not done fighting for these borrowers, that he's going to have more to say about it later today. we can expect formal remarks at the white house in the next couple of hours, and that he is going to be announcing some new actions according to this source specifically for borrowers and will announce this in order to try to help to encourage them in any way he can to try to help protect them. the other key point that i'm hearing from folks inside the white house is that in the political realm of all of this, as we try to navigate exactly how this may work given whatever they will announce later, that

they are going to make it, i'm told, crystal clear to borrowers and their families according to the white house that republicans are responsible for denying them the relief that president president biden has been fighting to get to them. now, remember they did know and they had been preparing for this scenario because this program had been already challenged several times as we know and have been discussing. it was on hold but that 43 million or so people and really the fate of how this would work was hanging in the balance. and they didn't want to get ahead of this decision. they continued to argue over the last couple of weeks, ana, actually, they felt the law was on their side. clearly that's not the case here. i think we should also look to the president's own comments yesterday after the affirmative action ruling as a little bit of a preview of what he could continue to talk about later today. he talked about that as a veer disappointment and when he was asked in the room by reporters whether he believes this is a,

quote, rogue court, all he would say is this is not a normal court, and i think to the case you've been also spending some time about in this hour with the wedding website designer, i'm told by a source who is familiar with the administration's thinking on this that there's severe disappointment there as well, especially today, the last day of pride month when they are going to talk about the importance of the first amendment. that goes without saying, i'm told the white house and the president will discuss. protections specifically for lgbtq+ community members, that is paramount, and i think you can also expect the president to weigh in on that and largely really these several cases that go against what the president would have wanted to see here on various >> okay. thank you very much for that reporting the point it is interesting to note, nearly 2/3

of the outstanding loan debt right now is held by females events, female borrowers. this is according to the american association of university women. the organization also says that when a woman graduates with a bachelor's degree she typically owes about $2700 more than her male counterpart. it takes two years longer for women to pay back loans, often times women go into a workforce where there is a gender pay gap. does this disproportionately impact women, do you think it is a setback for gender equality? >> it is definitely a setback for social ability through education. i think it is important to understand this decision. the affirmative action programs that were dismantled, they were means of social mobility for those who have historically

been underrepresented or formally excluded from higher education. that is important. we should also go back and correct some of the things that the individuals were saying. yes it is true that this perhaps unprecedented for student loans to be forgiven but it is not unprecedented for the government to forgive of their kinds of loans. student loans are not dischargeable in bankruptcy but loans for small businesses can be. the government extended quite generation loans to a number of people through the ppe program. those loans were also forgiven. it is not the case to say that somehow the government is not in the business of forgiving loans, it just seems today to not be in the business of forgiving student loans. these have also been a vehicle for people to move forward in society and have social mobility. >> you so much.

i know you need to move on but i do want to ask you, tim, about the impact going into 2024. we saw all, in the midterm specifically, the decision, a huge motivator for people to go out. i found that a quarter of the voters in the midterm election said that it was the sole factor motivating them to vote. do you see any of the issues that have come down to the last couple of days, these decisions becoming major player issues in the 2024 campaign? >> i think it will be without question. we did learn, not only did the issue of reproductive rights serve as a major motivator in the midterm elections, i think that that also put the issue of the supreme court in the minds of democratic voters in particular in a way that it had not been before.

this was a wake-up call for democrats. i think in this case, these two cases continue to point out just how high the stakes are in this case. i also want to point out what melissa was saying. it is important about the kinds of student loans that are allowed to be forgiven. it was actually something that the chief justice who wrote this said during early arguments. he seems to make the case that it is unfair for somebody who chose instead of going to school and taking students down- - student loan debt instead took out a loan to start a business. then they are helping these people with student loans get their debt forgiven. there were some that were forgiven during the pandemic. for private loans. there were millions, millions forgiven. , in a way, just as melissa said. student debt, and those other loans are dischargeable in bankruptcy in another way.

fairness was not an issue that was even before the court. that was something that john robert came to voice and enunciate almost like a republican talking point, justice kagan, in her defense, points out that one reason is because it is clear that the court here is not just interpreting the executive power, it is substituting itself in a way that goes out right of its power, substituting itself in its decision-making on behalf of the executive. that is a line that this court should not drawl but she sees that they have drawn in this case. >> kim, stay with me. president of the national education association, becky, welcome back to the program, we spoke yesterday after the affirmative action decision dropped. let's address the latest here. what are your initial thoughts on this ruling related to student loan forgiveness? what do you see as the path forward for students who may have been depending were counting on this loan

forgiveness? >> you know, yesterday the headline was access and opportunity denied. it is the same headline. these two decisions are absolutely interconnected. this court, this extremist out of touch court has now failed our families, failed our students and their families. honestly, they have failed at upholding american values and ideals. that is what is happening with all of these decisions. was it attack again on lgbtq rights, whether it is an attack on affirmative action, equality in the country, or now, here we are again. you are listening to your other panelists talk about the disparities that you heard us talk about yesterday. talk about student loans, we

are ready know that women 01 average $22,000 compared to men who only owe $18,000. when you talk about black women, they oh, on average, 37,000. then let's talk about people who have dedicated their lives to educating america's students while we are in the midst of the worst education shortage we have ever seen in this country. they are educators, they owe $58,000. this is an absolute blows of families who are putting off whether they are going to buy a house order whether couples are going to start a family. it is a blow to our students. >> i want to bring in former education secretary, don king junior and secretary king.

you were also a transfer at a university here in new york. i want you to listen to the current education secretary, on network yesterday. we are working to get that found. i want to know what you think our other options for the administration going forward, to perhaps pursue loan forgiveness, but more broadly, look at reducing the cost of going to college in the first race. >> look, i am very worried about the 26 million folks who are learning this morning that they are not going to be able to get help. about one third of the borrowers nationally have debt and no degree. the first thing we need to do is help those folks get back to school. we would like to see those folks come back to school to complete their degree. that will allow them to defer their debt payments, which start a backup this fall.

then we have to work to make college more affordable. i would love to see the federal government double the pell grant program. in 1980 the pell grant program covered about 80% of the cost of college. no, it covers less than one third. we have transfer that cost from the federal government to students and their families in the form of debt. that is a policy mistake that needs to be corrected. >> let's listen to miguel cardona. >> from day one we have been making sure that our students are at the center. we have provided over $65 billion in debt relief and we are fixing a broken system. for example, public service loan forgiveness. we want to make sure that we continue to fight for our students and continue to make sure that higher education is accessible and affordable. >> following the financial side of all of this. the potential giant impact it could have and how expensive

college currently is. breakdown the numbers for us. >> the numbers are plain and simple. it would have been 43 million americans. actually, 60 million americans were already fully approved when the portal had opened up last year. in total it would have been out $400 billion in total student debt that would have been forgiven, but interesting, at the household level it could have been savings of a few hundred dollars per month. all in all, this is very impactful for those families that will now have to face those payments. we do not know how the biden administration will transition those payments once they resume later this year. we will see what kind of grace period they can put in place. >> thank you to all of our guest analysts and experts for joining us in this discussion today. happy friday to all of you. i hope you have a wonderful weekend. lindsey reiser picks up our breaking news coverage gh