forever in ways that are not healthy. >> i actually agree with that. i don't think you pack the court because you are upset at one moment in time. >> catherine christian, thank you. i appreciate you. i'll see you back here tomorrow from 2:00 to 4:00 p.m. eastern. andrea mitchell picks up with more news right now. and right now on "andrea mitchell reports," the supreme court's bitter ideological divide is on full display today as the conservative super majority super charged by trump nominees overturns precedents and makes new ones. first striking a big blow to the biden administration by invalidating student loan forgiveness to 40 million americans in a decision written by chief justice john roberts. also a potentially life changing defeat for the lgbtq community, with a conservative majority siding with a colorado designer who does not want to create

wedding websites for same sex couples. an application of the first amendment to civil rights law that could affect public accommodations perhaps even gay marriage access for many minority groups. good day. i'm andrea mitchell in washington where the supreme court just ended its urm with a conservative super majority flexing its muscle once again. this morning striking down the student loan forgiveness program with the chief justice writing in part the secretary of education asserts the heroes act. in a second major ruling today but perhaps even more far ranging consequences down the road the six conservatives, gorsuch writing the opinion saying the first amendment rights of a colorado website designer give her the freedom to

refuse from accepting same sex couples from her business. in this case justice sotomayor read aloud a strongly worded dissent from the bench to emphasize her strong disagreement. writing in part, lgbt people have existed for all of human history. and as sure as they've existed, others have sought to deny their existence and exclude them from public life. those who would subordinate lgbt people have done so with the backing of law. joining me now laura jarrett, daniel holly, former dean of howard university law school, jennifer masta, former clerk to justices thomas and clerk also to judge kavanaugh when he was a judge. and barbara mcquade, university of michigan law professor and former u.s. attorney, plus jen psaki, host of msnbc's "inside with jen psaki" on sundays at

noon. more major decisions to end this term. please sum them up. i'm just looking at the lgbtx decision and i can see anplication to civil rights law that can have broader consequences down the road. >> i think what you're seeing, andrea, in combination between today's decisions and the decision yesterday on affirmative action is a court that is deeply divided with dramatically different world views about discrimination, about the rights of disenfranchised minorities and what to do about that. in the case of the graphic disciper in colorado she says i'm happy to make websites for gay people in general, and just don't want to do wedding websites. and the problem with that it runs head first into public accommodation laws in the state of colorado, like many places it says you cannot discriminate against people for sexual orientation. so if you're going to hold

yourself open to as a business for everybody you have to serve yourself to everybody. the justices saying you've now provided open season for discrimination on all kinds of different fronts not just limited to gay peoples but on the basis of race. what's to stop someone from saying i don't want to serve couples that are in an interracial relationship? there's no meaningful difference there. the issue for justice gorsuch is it's narrowly tailored in this case to the facts and the fact is the courts stipulated she's making something unique. so there's a debate going on whether it will actually meaningfully bleed into other things, other public accommodations. on the student loan issue i think it's related to what we saw yesterday on affirmative action. in iscase they say the president

didn't have the authority to do something this bold with such economic and political significance. it's a plan that would have forgiven millions in student loans for millions of americans, more than 40 actually. but thought they didn't have the authority. it's a ramification for peoples lives again on that one and on affirmative action, it's quite significant. >> and danielle holly, you spent so much of your career on student education. let me pick up on exactly what lura was just talking about because first of all this is a hypothetical. she doesn't have a website. she's saying in the future if she creates a waebsite, this would infringe on her first amendment rights, her creative abilities. so it looks to me this was an issue where they were looking for a case to bring because it wasn't right and that's why surprised it even got this far,

that it wasn't rejected on standing. she has not suffered any harm so far. >> one of the similarities between the two cases today was definitely the question whether there was a live case or controversy to be heard by the supreme court. and in the 330 created case, the lgbtq case i think the question really was is this pure speculation? she had not made any websites of this kind. further reporting has shown whether there was a question anyone ever requested her to make a website of this kind. and in the student loan case i think they found in the individual borrower's case they found there was no standing but they found at least missouri had standing in the case they eventually found to overturn the student loan relief. and i think in that case justice kagen points out very well that this is a question of separation of powers. should the court be getting involved in what the executive branch is doing on an issue

that's so important to 40 million borrowers and would have wiped out the debt of about 20 million borrowers? is this a question for the court, or is it a question for the executive branch to sort out especially after covid where they were trying to use emergency procedures to help people in the wake of covid. >> jen psaki, you actually were in the administration and are familiar with the student loan issue. >> yeah. >> and also with the fact of the youth vote and how important this was to joe biden. >> first of all, the cost of college is crippling. that's why the president wanted to do this, to provide some relief to students across the country. this should be combined if we think about it with the ulfirmative action decision yesterday. these decisions over the last 24 hours are essentially making it harder for a range of communities to go to college and seek a higher education because of affordability, because of the impact affirmative action is going to have on communities of

color trying to seek a college education. that's not the direction our country should be going in, so, yes, it's a blow. if you're sitting in the white house right now they're probably meeting this afternoon to discuss what else they can do on debt relief, what else they can do for the cost of college. but all of this is going to have a huge impact i suspect on the courts and popularity of the courts. they were at 30% according to a poll last week. these type of decisions are something that activates young people, activates them to kind of speak out, to vote, to have their voice heard. >> we certainly saw the effect of the dobbs decision. jennifer, let me ask you how this conservative majority appointed by president trump now are making history ever term and they're using their power. >> i think a lot of this comes down to context. for example on the student loan

things i think they're saying really the decisions are made by congress which has a broader electoral base and interest then the executive branch. and so if the president is going to use a statute that was put into place for modest waiver of in circumstances where there's an emergency and originally was used in favor of military personnel, that that is not -- it is beyond the congressional party that was given, and so it's time to go back to congress if folks would like there to be different policy options. and i think the decision yesterday the courts saw some concern with particularly in the case of harvard actually seeing perhaps discrimination against asian americans, so one group and not wanting there to be people favored just on the basis of race. as far as the court making history i've been in a conference where the top supreme court advocate was giving statistics on this. and interestingly at least as of yesterday had found justice thomas and justice alito were

actually more in dissent this term than even just kagen and sotomayor, which might be surprise. but statistically if you look across the board at some of the decisions not in favor in the business community and the voting rights decision the other day, it actually appears thomas and alito may have been in the majority than some of the justices today. >> that's partly because they were doing the less controversial decisions up front earlier and were clearly divided and arguing back and forth in different trading opinions, draft opinions back and forth and leaving these two most important ones, arguably. justice roberts certainly weighed in on that. barbara mcquade, let me ask you about the web designer decision because there's a lot of suggestion today that alluding

to what justices alito and thomas in particular said at the end of a dobbs decision that this could be tormented more broadly beyond, you know, the websites. >> i think that's right. and if you read justice sotomayor's dissent, which she says is chutely true that today the court relegates the lgbtq community to second class status. we've seen over the history of the court that they would not tolerate these kind of discriminatory acts against people of color, not against people of religious minorities. but when it comes to lgbtq couples, you know, then this belief that these marriages are, quote, false is enough to trump that right to public accommodation. it really jumps out to me as justice sotomayor says not just wrong but profoundly wrong, and the concern is now it's open season. anybody who has a business, who doesn't want to serve gay couples or gay individuals can just say i'm going to cite the

303 creative case. i'm going put up a sign that says no gays aloud. she sites the history that used to say no dogs or jews. that is now fair game when the comes to the lgbtq community. >> and handicapped asked disabled people are also in the cross hairs potentially. do you think, barbara, before i let you go there on this subject do you think it could be in play, gay marriage? >> i do because what you mention what justice thomas said that anything that relied on substantive process was fair game. and if you read dobbs though they were saying it's strictly limited on this issue, but the basis for it was to say there's not this fundamental fairness substantive due process right. and any right that relies on

that and one of them is same sex marriage, i think it's fair game if the court wants to take it up. >> and laura jarrett, you were this morning moving because the battlefield because there was another gun case for spousal abuse cases and they've now taken that up. do you want to explain the significance of that? >> yeah, that could be a big one. at the end of the term they do sort of a cleanup order, if you will, and it has a list for cases they're going to hear next term, and one of the cases on there has to do with the federal law that had said people who had restraining orders for domestic violence shouldn't have firearms. well, the federal circuit court said, no, that's not okay under supreme court pres dependent, and they struck it down. so they actually gutted the federal law. the justice department as you might emergency appealed that and listed the supreme court to put the law back in play. now the supreme court has taken it up, which given the supreme court's rulings when it comes to the second amendment and guns i think it's raising a lot of

eyebrows about what exactly they would lan to do here. now, maybe they would uphold the rights of gun owners to possess firearms after they have an order for domestic violence, or maybe they wouldn't want to go that far and say, actually, going to make sure federal law is restored. we'll see what they say here, but another big law when it comes to fundamental rights, when it comes to constitution, violence against women. it'll be a big case to watch next term. >> and jen psaki, this is another case guns and et cetera has been an issue on the right. >> it's also become a hot button issue on the left. as i listen to laura defend that case i'm not a lawyer so i'm not

giving legal analysis there but the challenge the supreme court has is that some of these decisions have dramatic impacts on peoples lives, and they just don't sound right or sit well with people across the country. >> and to danielle, is there an issue here with the court has to begin to worry about the respect and thought running a political campaign or a popularity contest, but they need to be observed. they movings need to be obeyed, and that requires the broad electorate, that america really respects what they're doing. >> yeah, i think institutional accountability and institutional credibility is really at issue for the supreme court. we see their approval ratings in the 30s, and making decisions that have such a negative impact on the lives of everyday people especially when you begin to

overturn very long-standing precedent like dobbs last year and yesterday in the aurm firmative action cases in which that was essentially a 45-year-old precedent that was wiped away you have to consider what is the institutional consideration their doing and i think those two things put together the overstanding long-term questions and the ethics question begin to raise the spectrum the supreme court issing us back 50 or 60 years and wonder what is the limit to that. especially when you see the 6-3 opinions in really important cases, it calls to mind all those important institutional questions. >> jennifer, what about the issue of confirmations because in all the old confirmations they all said they would observe precedents, and now you see them

in dobbs and the affirmative action case clearly against against precedent. >> i think what's interesting the difference in the dobbs opinion joined by justice alito versus the six justices joining yesterday, it does seem to me the chief, he declined to expressly say yesterday. i think at least my sense reading between the lines there tactically they might see the court as having to treat the precedent a bit differently this career and not expressly overruling something. to go back to the wedding cake case i also think it's important there to look at the controversial holding, which i think the justices perceive to be fairly modest because justice gorsuch starts by actually saying that the wedding cake designer explicitly confirmed she'd be willing to work with people obviously of all

backgrounds and not discriminate and that here it was really important everybody in the case conceded expressive activity was at stake. what the court was finding today is that the first amendment means the state cannot control somebody to creating product that has a message that differs from their religious beliefs just as the court in the past that said school districts can't make children raise their hand to the flag. we wouldn't say an atheist has to force someone to convert to a religion they don't believe in. the court is saying here we're not going to allow colorado to force the wedding designer to have to create these messages, but she will serve all people the best she can. >> thanks to you. thanks to all. and we're also hearing from monica alba at the white house that the president has been meeting with his advisers and is considering what options he might have clearly on the

student loan case to go administratively or come up with another legislative fix for that. and make sure to watch inside with jen psaki of course sunday at noon right here on msnbc. and the website designer with the objections to same sex marriage now allowed to refuse services to same sex couples after making a free speech argument. reactions next when andrea mitchell reports is back in just 60 seconds so don't go away. we'll be right back here on msnbc. we'll be right back here on msnbc. and save on every perk. sadie is moving to the big city and making moves on her plan, too. apple one, on. now she's got plenty of entertainment for the whole ride. finally there! hot spot, on. and she's fully connected before her internet is even installed. (sadie) hi, mom! (mom) how's the apartment? (vo) introducing myplan. get exactly what you want, only pay for what you need. act now and get it for $25 when you bring your phones. it's your verizon. from big cities, to small towns,

and on main streets across the us, you'll find pnc bank. helping businesses both large and small, communities and the people who live and work there grow and thrive. we're proud to call these places home too. they're where we put down roots, and where together, we work to help move everyone's financial goals forward. pnc bank. as we've been reporting the supreme court sided with a web designer in colorado who said she has a first amendment right to refuse to provide services for same sex couples getting married. joining us now is sarah kate ellis, the ceo and president of glad, a major civil rights group representing lgbtq people. sarah kate, thank you. what's your reaction, i think i can guess it, but talk to me about the supreme court decision

and how do you feel about it. >> well, you know, today is the last day of pride and it's a dark day for pride. unfortunately, this is a narrow decision however it still is a decision in favor of discrimination in this country and not recognizing same sex marriages and allowing other peoples beliefs to facilitate how they engage in a business act. so i think it's, you know -- also, andrea, i want to build a little context to this. this has been a really tough year for us as lgbtq americans. there have been over 500 american anti-lgbtq bills proposed at the ledge s slaitive and then 75-plus have gone through into law. so this is sort of the cherry on this unfortunate cake of backlash against our community. >> nbc's marissa paritt just

spoke to her web designer and her attorney lori smith. let's take a look at that. >> from day one all i wanted to stay consist with my beliefs. i want that for everyone. i want that for the lgbtq website designer, the jewish calligrapher, the pro-life photographer. everyone should be free to speak consistent with who they are and what they believe, and i'm grateful for the court for affirming the government can't force anyone to say something they don't believe. today is truly a victory for each and every one of us. >> your reaction, sarah kate? >> yeah, it's not a victory for the lgbtq community. it was a victory for etremists in america and people who continue to want to discriminate against lgbtq people. it is a narrow decision, i want to be clear about that, and i think it can set a precedent, so it's really important we fight back now and that we organize

around this so that it does stay very, very narrow and it doesn't start to filter into a sign that saying we don't serve gay folks. america, if you're open to one you need to be open for all. and i think this supreme court has been taking away rights instead of expanding rights especially for marginalized communities in america. it started last year with dobbs, happened yesterday with affirmative action, and then it happened today with the lgbtq community. this is a pattern that we're seeing with this court that they are targeting marginalized communities and taking away our rights. >> justice sotomayor in her dissent wrote, "today for 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." so what are the implications of that? >> well, i think one of the implications of that is that we

need to keep this very small and fight back because it could get into a license to discriminate for businesses. we need to see corporations stand up and say this is un-american, that this is not the way we treat people in america and that if you start with lgbtq people, where is the liep? what about jewish people, what about people of color? where do i go if i don't want to serve someone else? how do you determine now they haven't potentially opened this pandora's box. >> sarah kate ellis, thank you for being with us today. and the other big case college students around the country and millions more still trying to pay off their loans are reacting to the supreme court decision striking down. they've been waiting for months to see how the high court would

rule and how it would affect their financial futures. now they know. so what are you hearing in response to student loan decisions from people who are carrying these loans? >> well, folks who are carrying the loans are saying this is going to impact their day to day lives. this is something they were relying on. one thing about this program we know there were 26 million people who applied for this forgiveness, more than 16 million people who were approved of this loan forgiveness before the courts stepped in and put a hold on the overall program. this is going to impact people who thought they were going to have a little bit more money to play around with. there are those who oppose any forgiveness saying this was a matter of fairness saying this was an attempt to get votes. the impact from people is so clear from the conversations i've been having. i want you to listen to them starting with a gentleman who didn't support him. listen here. >> it gave me a lot of respect

towards the president, so it showed me that he's fighting for the american people. >> reporter: you say this as someone who didn't vote for him? >> yeah, yeah, as someone who didn't. >> as anything there should be a little in between. i don't think total forgiveness, but i think we have to do a better job restructuring and get interest rates for those kids but when you borrow money, you've got to pay it back. one person particularly upset after the ruling and we know from statistics affcan americans hold the biggest share of student loan debt out there. if you include gender black women have the biggest share of federal student loan debt, so they're saying if you combine this with yesterday's decision it's really not a beneficial thing for people relying on this

forgiveness. again the supreme court saying the president didn't have the power, the legal authority to go ahead and forgive these loans. >> we have to talk about the impact the financial decision would have because there are so many people who are carrying these loans as well as prospective students applying to college who may now be deterred from going to high cost schools. >> we just showed that number $1.6 trillion in total student loans because of the nature of the plan biden was proposing it would have released about $400 billion of that so not necessarily all of it. again, the proposal was up to $20,000 for those that use pell grants. in many cases those thresholds were particularly targeted toward younger borrowers who didn't take out as much debt. we talked sometimes how some americans are borrowing up to 100,000, in some cases double

that aamount. that is the vast majority of college borrower. it would have been very impactful for a lot of these borrowers optimistic about the plan surviving and they could use that cushion to perhaps afford some of the things getting expensive in this inflationary environment. so the next natural question is what happens because we know the agreement basically banned which means translation for those listening the outcome of the supreme court decision here means that payments will begin again in the fall, but we heard the biden administration earlier tease they were going to do some sort of action, that action could potentially look like for example algrace period over the 90 days once we hit september, which would allow a no hit to your credit score if you miss a payment even if interest payments resume again. we'll have tool see the details,

but again this is far from over with the white house intent on taking further action. andrea, the question is what is that action going to be? >> shaq brewster and brian chung, thanks to both of you. and joining us now john good, member of the house freedom caucus and education committee. you introduced and passed the house legislation to overturn the student loan forgiveness program. virginia has 1.1 million borrowers so what's your message today to the 45 million student loan borrowers nationwide. >> i'm thankful for a supreme court rereturning to the foundation of our constitution. this is a supreme court that respects the constitution. with respect to student loan debt first of all we shouldn't be calling it a forgiveness plan. it's not a forgiveness plan.

it's a student loan forgiveness scheme. he takes the action he knows he doesn't have the constitutional power to do hoping the supreme court will not overturn him. 50% of the constituents i can say in my district try to have a college degree to force them to pay the student loan debt. people making up to $50,000 for a family or have their student loan debt fribnen or taken by borrowers who have not incurred that debt is wrong, immoral. the president doesn't have the authority to authorize or appropriate funds like this. our congressional review acts overturned this before his veto with democrats supporting it.

it's just wrong for the american people and i'm glad the smort has risen to the occasion here. just one point is that this is not helping the wealthiest people because the wealthy people pay -- they don't take out student loans. this is helping working class, some middle class people who have not qualified for other programs and are able to go to college because they're take out these loans and carrying this burden for the rest of their careers some of them. >> i'm in the education workforce committee. this is our responsibility policy like this, and the student loan debt is absolutely held proportionally by the higher level income of americans. the student transfer scheme biden has proposed wego for families well above the income in my district. individuals making $125,000, i've got hardworking families in my district who would just as soon not have to pay their

mortgage, just as soon not have to pay for their credit card bill. the same is true of those who invest in themselves and go to school, invest in their education so they can earn a higher standard of living. i have member of my family who have student loan debt. i have student loan debt, but we recognize it's unjust and immoral others have to pay that student loan debt, and that certainly shouldn't be transferred to those who are borrowing it. >> it's interesting one of the people interviewed by shaq brewster today in chicago was wearing a maga hat. he was not a biden supporter at all, didn't vote for him but liked this program because he thought it was fighting for the working class. we already saw how the dobbs decision last year impacted the mid-terms. are you concerned about the politics of all this? >> we need to do what is right. and for the president to announce this just before the election i think it was a vote buying scheme. he knew it wasn't

constitutional. he knew he didn't have the authority do it but also knew it probably wouldn't get blocked until the constitution and it did. he was lying to the american people saying, yes, he had the authority to do this, but we ought to do what is right. we're going to run nearly a$2 trillion deficit. we should be borrowing from our students and grandkids and shouldn't be forcing taxpayers who didn't borrow that debt or maybe worked their way through school so they didn't have student loan debt or chose not to go to college and we're trying to transfer those loan debts to the individuals and supreme court declared. >> it's very good and i appreciate your coming onto these views. let's have your debate who contributed to the deficit and business breaks and tax breaks.

>> i look forward to doing it. >> okay, i look forward to that conversation. please come back. we appreciate it. >> thank you. great to be with you. and the 2024 impact. how the supreme court's landmark cases from this term could affect the upcoming presidential election. that's next. you're watching andrea mitchell reports. this is msnbc. g andrea mitchell reports. this is msnbc.

sleepovers just aren't what they used to be. a house full of screens? basically no hiccups? you guys have no idea how good you've got it. how old are you? like, 80? back in my day, it was scary stories and flashlights. we don't get scared. oh, really? mom can see your search history. that's what i thought. introducing the next generation 10g network. only from xfinity.

and joining me now for more on today's supreme court decisions, florida democratic congressman maxwell frost, the youngest member of congress. congressman, thank you very much. are you still 26? i don't know if you've had a birthday. >> i am still 26. >> okay. so just because we wanted to make sure we got that right and to you about your age group, but it's also older people because people are carrying student loan debt for decades. we're hearing from the white house the fight is not over, but what can be done? unlikely you would have the votes in the house and senate to

do this legislatively. >> yeah, it's important for folks to know this decision doesn't strike down the president's ability to do this in general. it strikes down the way he was doing it. and so there are other ways that, you know, that an administration can go about ensuring that he can forgive student loan debt. it is completely constitutional and within his authority. now it's going to be incumbent upon the administration to find other ways to do it and other laws to look at and other mechanisms. i have confidence he'll do it. i'm hearing we'll hear from the white house soon i and it's important we don't give up on this fight. as you said it's not just about about young people. yes, it's about a whole generation of people who have crushing student loan debt, but older folks have crushing student loan debt as well. to my colleagues and opportunities who agree with

this i would say this isn't fair. it's not fair people who have loans in the first place and people who paid their debt, that isn't fair either. imagine the world we'd be in. we talk about looking at progress and how we make things better for the american people, and student loan debt forgiveness is popular and something going to help people a lot of people out of a bad situation. >> do you think this will impact the young peoples vote because they were an important factor in the mid-terms, but there's always a little disappoint with how inspired people can be and the age factor has been important. and younger people are not thrilled about re-electing an older president. >> depending how the electorate is swayed. we'll be here to support him

when he comes out and talks about the plan "b" and how he's not giving up on this policy. of course young people are excited about it, but all people are excited about it. this helps working families. this is about economic justice because we understand we're in this bet not because we're beyond our means but we're denied the means to live. we want to see the president stay tune f true to this process, to this agenda, and we'll be here to support him when he does that. >> and what are your concerns briefly about the other case which could have widespread implications for lgbtq people but also for other minorities in public accommodations down the road. >> i'm incredibly disheartened by what wraefb seen from the supreme court today both on student debt and as it relates to lgbtq rights. it's important for people to note that decision was based on something that hasn't yet happened. it was based on the hypothetical that came from a mind of a

bigoted lady who was in that case herself. that also sets a dangerous standard. how many more supreme court decisions will be based on something that hasn't happened yet? this is part of the reason why we need to call out this corrupt court, and the fact it's not working with the best interest of the american people in mind, it's part of the reason why elections are so important so we can actually put justices on the court that can do their job in the right way and not be corrupt and unethical. we'll continue tool fight and we're working on mobilizing folks both on the affirmative action. ewe have to continue to organize because this fight isn't over to protect student loan debt forgiveness. the president still has tools he can use, and we'll push to ensure he uses them. >> congressman mackual foster in florida, appreciate it.

>> and thanks for having me. and we do expect to hear reaction from him about today's two big supreme court decisions. for more on the political fallout from this term's rulings let's bring in "the new york times" correspondent peter baker, republican strategist susan del percio, robert gibbs, and samstein. what a great group. sam, student loan forgiveness a key pillar of joe biden's agenda. he could find another way to do it by executive order because finding a legislative path in this house is going to be very difficult. >> difficult is probably an understatement, andrea. i think it would be nearly impossible in this house. yes, it is now -- the ball is now in his court to borrow a

cliché what the reaction is. he could look for instance to adjust the actual interest rate via executive action. we'll hear more from the white house. we're expected at least later today. the suspicion is he will come out with some new actions, but i think your -- what you said earlier is worth considering here which is sort of a reluctant -- if we're reluctant to embrace this to begin with, he did not go as far as contemporaries in the primary. he didn't believe in the authority, he stymied it for quite a while. it was omafter a months of studying it, a year after he did it. >> peter, take a big picture here looking at the court and politics of all this because the decision the colorado case on

the website it was a hypothetical case. she doesn't have a website yet, so it just seems as though activist groups are looking for cases to bring to this court with and they are taking these cases. it was not self-evident that she had even had standing. >> well, they are taking theseclass and are plowing new ground constitutionally in effect especially under colorado law which made discrimination against same sex couples to be illegal. and courts seem to want to plow into thought f that kind of precrounds that it's upending long settled -- you know, long settled understandings in the constitution. it may not be a single decision that will motivate people quite as much as the dobbs decision last year in terms of the

democrats, here you hear president biden talking about and democrats talking about is a court using words hard to the right. and that is seen a possible motivator for democratic voters across the board. we'll see whether that works again. and the courts have traditionally motivated republican voters more than democratic voters and biden and his allies would like to turn that around next year. >> and robert gibbs we still have the decision motivated young mid-term voters. 63% voted democratic. they named abortion access as their top motivating issue. so look at the president's approval rating. do you see affirmative action, gay rights, student loans are going to motivate this sector, the young voters?

>> my guess is the presumption by the supreme court with young voters is much, much lower. we know it's at an all-time low with all voters. bringing these strands together to talk about essentially the theory of this court case, theory of what this court is doing, taking into totality whether it's student loans, lgbtq protections, affirmative action, what not, all those things topped off with abortion i think creates quite a bit of fodder for joe biden and his campaign and democrats in their campaign to really drive these issues. you asked i think a good question of sam about this house not being able to overturn this. i think if democrats have their way using the supreme court, they'll be dealing with a much

different house come 2025 as a result of what's happened over the course of really the last year in their decision. >> and the president has just tweeted, unthinkable -- this is in response to the student loan decision. unthinkable, the fight isn't over and i'll have more to address in the afternoon. with and we think that will be at 2:00. he said yesterday this is not a normal court, peter, but later in the day he told nicolle wallace expanding the court is not the best approach. let me play that. >> and put together a group of constitutional skoalers to try to expand the court, which i think was a mistake. after all, the judgment was that doesn't make sense because it can become so politicized in the

future. i think if we start the process trying to expand the court we're going to politicize it maybe forever in a way that is not healthy. >> that you can't get back. that you can't get back. he's going to be under more pressure to do something about this to change, but that's not an overwhelmingly popular view right now at least on the latest polling on that issue. yeast i don't see him bending on it, so what more can you dool to counteract these decisions? >> sure. and you're absolutely right. i don't see him moving off that position either, andrea. i think what the campaign needs to focus on for 2024 is looking how basically thanks to the supreme court especially when it comes to dobbs, it comes from the states now. these are no longer federal issues but statewide issues.

and if look at michigan and you look at wisconsin, you can mobilize people. i think dobbs will be the greatest motivator, frankly, in 2024 because people are now really truly seeing what it means to be able to appoint people to the supreme court. but in addition to that i think that's what's happened with these decisions now give a great opportunity to do the president -- for his campaign to create coalitions and use this to bring younger people of different communities together because that's really what he needs to do is watch his turnout. and i think that he'll be able to work off-of these. >> and peter baker, in terms of the election, these are becoming defining issues clearly for 2024. and could trump -- the other big issue for him, the age issue. >> yeah, look, trump of course is singularly in the middle of

this because he appointed three justices to the supreme court and the argument will be whether you're for or against it, that will be because of trump. if you want a supreme court different from the one you have now is you have to beat trump. otherwise you'll get more justices like this. he'll make the argument for a conservative base as he's trying to win a primary for the nomination he's the one responsible for these decisions. he's congratulated the court on a number of these. the juan complicated for him has been the abortion where he's not been willing to go as far to the right. others who want a stronger ban that's something on abortion a election. susan knows better than anybody how positions taken in a primary can sometimes put you -- >> peter baker, susan dell .

the decisions released by the six conservative justices are going to have wide ranging impacts on minority communities for decades to come. mark morel joins me now. i'm not only speaking of people of color, i'm thinking of those people who have been in the disability movement, all kinds of other minorities. religious and racial minorities. >> yeah. and all people who want a just -- >> that's a good point. >> -- and diverse america regardless of race. these decisions, andrea, i feel are a spear through our hearts. this court is a political court. this court is a trumpian court. these decisions are trumpist decisions. they involve the overturning of long-held precedents, in the case of the affirmative action decision, in the case of student loans and lgbtq rights.

they involve the court functioning as a super legislature, and its political nature and the fact that these decisions wreak of politics cannot be misunderstood. we can have intellectual arguments about the equal protection clause, about the freedom of religion. but let me query this, if i created a religious that said that black people and women and brown people are inferior, and that's what i believe from a religious point of view, could i refuse and says religion says i don't have to serve them in my restaurant or in my business. the court's decision is altering the constitutional landscape for this country in a way that is so inconsistent with the last 50, 60 years of progressive change in this country. so while in the case of

affirmative action it leaves a window open, a small door open to be able to find new ways to achieve diversity on college campuses and in classrooms, make no mistake about it, these decisions are backwards steps for this nation and involve, i think, the political nature of this supreme court today. when you take the decision last year in dobbs and these decisions together, it is clear this court has a right leaning tender, they don't care about stare decisis, they are not bound by precedent. they want to write a new constitutional, if you will, book for the 21st century, and it's dangerous, and it's painful, and it is hurtful. and what of our children and what of our grand chern, when this court has the nerve to question, to suggest a reinterpretation of the cardinal rule of the brown decision in

1954. so we shoulder on. we will fight very hard to confront this, and i think this will be an issue for voters across the board. it's important to look at these decisions not independently, but to look at them together and understand that they reflect, if you will, a right wing coup on this supreme court. >> and i just want to read parts of a statement from the president just now where he says the fight is not over and that he's going to have more to announce later on. he points out that 90% of the relief from the student loan plan went to people making less than $75,000 a year. none of it would have gone to people making more than $125,000 a year, which disputes some of the claims that this was going to the wealthy, people of 250,000 and up. it does not. and we are also -- i think we've

just heard from an naacp official outside the court, if we could briefly play that. >> my career journey as an educator has brought with it $130,000 of student loan debt, that as derrick mentioned earlier is now over $150,000 due to continuously compounding interest over the last 11 years. >> people on the internet whom i would simply like to refer to as haters, tell you you should have planned better. that being a target of the predatory loan system was my choice, but like so many others, i did plan. >> marc morial, i'm going to have to thank you there. i just wanted to get that in and the president's reactions with the breaking news. we'll talk again soon. >> we'll fight on, thank you. >> thank you. today's major decisions from the court raising questions about the long-term implications for student finances and lgbtq rights. joining us now, former republican congressman from texas, will hurd who is now a presidential candidate. congressman, thank you very much for being with us. your reaction to the decision, first of all, on the student loan decision?

>> well, on the student loan decision, i don't think we should have been surprised by that because even speaker moez pelosi or nancy pelosi said that president biden didn't have the capability to do this. but there's a broader issue here is why is it so expensive to go to school. when you look at in this century in the last 20, 30, years, the cost of school has skyrocketed. why are schools are producing students that aren't able to pay back their college loans. this is more than just a federal issue, what are our states doing in order to control that and provide a better education, and so that's the root cause and the problems that need to be addressed because we all know that if you don't -- if we have income inequality because we have education inequality, and if we're not producing students that can pay back these loans, that's a big problem. >> and what about the lgbtq decision? >> yeah, look, this is a decision that makes me uncomfortable, but i think it was the right call partly

because we should protect expression and speech, even if it makes us uncomfortable and we disagree with it. i personally disagree with the sentiments that were expressed in this case. it was a narrow ruling because this was about expression in providing a service, and -- but we should be protecting these -- the ability to have speech and say the government can't tell you what to do even if you don't agree with what that speech is. >> except that this was a hypothetical case. she doesn't have a website. she was basically speaking prospectively, so you could argue that they looked for a case and took it. that it wasn't really ready to be decided. >> look, i wouldn't be getting a website from this individual, and the reality is there is other options and capabilities. you can potentially get a website from someplace in bangladesh. this also protects an lgbtq

website designers from preventing to have to do a content or provide a website that has anti-gay content as well. so that protects that, but when it comes to -- when it comes to protecting speech, we should. >> and you put out a statement yesterday saying that with or without affirmative action because that was, of course, the other big, big case, we're failing to prepare too many of our black and brown students for higher education. what do you think we can do to prevent higher education colleges and universities from becoming elite, white institutions? >> sure. this -- what's crazy to me in all of this is that our colleges are not being reflective of our states and guess what, it's because we're not sending enough kids from high schools and preparing them to get in the schools and then also be successful once they get there. like i said about the student

loan issue, this is a huge state issue as well, and one -- what are our governors in our state legislatures making sure the kids have the capabilities to perform. i've spent a lot of time working on technology like ai and quantum computing. we have to start preparing our kids for jobs that don't exist today, if we can't even get them ready for things now, how are we going to get them to do it in the future. >> i have so many questions to ask you on foreign policy. good luck out there on the campaign trail and we hope to talk to you again soon. >> i'll be back. >> thank you very much. former congressman will hurd, and that does it for this edition of "andrea mitchell reports." thanks for being with us. have a wonderful, safe july 4th weekend. to all of you suffering from the bad air like those us here in d.c. and from the bad air

traffic problems as many of us have, be patient if you can, and good luck out there, and have a wonderful july 4th and think about what our nation was built upon all those years ago, which is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and access for all. yasmin vossoughian is in for chris jansing reports starting right now. ♪♪ >> hey, everybody, good afternoon to you. i'm yasmin vossoughian in for chris jansing here at msnbc headquarters in new york city. we're going to begin with that breaking news out of the supreme court. two major decisions with potentially massive implications. justices in a 6-3 decision striking down president biden's student debt forgiveness plan, a major blow to the white house and deflating a campaign promise that fired up troves of young people. so who will people blame