justice kagan: okay. so that's a different argument. justice roberts: juslito. justice alito: counsel, you have made a number of argum some of them are quite far-reaching, and've been questioned about some of those aladin the argument today, but let me make sure i undersour basic argument, your least far-reaching argument. as i understood it, your argus that the first gingles precondition requires thing that there can be a reasonably configured majority-minorstrict. that has to be reasona configured. reasonably configured mean something more than just compac it means a district that is the type of districthat would be drawn by an unbiased math maker. a plaintiff can satisfy that mply by coming forith a district that is majority minority. but, that doesn't end the inquiry because if it can be shown, as you claim the computer simulations in this clip -- in this case show, that is not the kind odirict that a mapmaker would ever draw then the first precondition is not satisfied. that's how i understood your b

lacour: i don't think so, justice kagan. mean, going back to gingles, i think the benchma there even for multi-member districts was neutrally drawn single member districts, not racially gerrymandered single member districts. and then, when younue justice kagan: of course, you're requiring that there be that kind of benchmark. the quess not whether it's permis you are requiring that there be ce-neutral benchmark, and i'm asking whether that requirement has ever been stated in our precedents. mr. lacour: i think that's what bush v. vera abrams, and what lulac were all pushing towards when they said you must account aditional districting principles. i don't know why you would even account for them except that if a plaintiff's failure to account for them in their map -- if -- if plaintiffs fail to account them in their map, then their map can't really shed any right -- justice sotomayor: counsel -- mr. lacour: -- on whether t's a problem. justice kagan: i g ask because what strikes me about this case is that under our president,

lacour: two points on that justice kagan. as i was noting -- i mean justice kavanaugh, i apologize any better for the black belt. and that'sheir goal. so, if you look ain plan b. not to be outdone, mr. cooper, the caster plaintif drawer, in his plan , that's -- he splits them five ways. black belt, but wekeep together -- justice kavanaugh: but isn't the question -- isn't the question whether the new district is reasonably compact, reasonably configured? loirp correct. justice kavanaugh: and so, on that, you look at respecting county, for example, right? that's an important one. d this did. this new district did just as well, if not better, in respecting county lines. at least that's the nt. so i want to hear your response to that. then the overall shape of the the other side is --gument on well, that looks similar in shape to a lot of other diricts that are in the state plans well. so you don't have the kind of aw v. reno bizarre map. and you don't have county lines linebeing split more -- but respond to this if you want -- s

justice kagan: thank you. justice kavanaugh: it seems like iguring out the mens rea issue, we're making quasi-policy judgments about where to draw the line. and in thinking about that, you alluded to this but i'd be interested in you just telling us from the federal government's rsctive, what are the problems that you see that would be caused by adopting petitioner's rule? like real concrete kinds of cases thatou go unarrested, unprosecuted. mr. feigin: i tried to jam this in bit earlier. justice kavanaugh: taka nute or so. mr. feigin: to expand on it a bit more. number one, there are delusional stalkers, or not just stalkers, like delusional threateners, and we have to accept their harms. there are also devusnes like elonis. i'd commend to the court looking back at some of the statement he is made that are recouedn the court's opinion in that case, carly see someone trying to toe the line and that's extlwhat these people do. and we're not prosecuting them on the basis of one statement in isatn like, i hope th

chief justice roberts: justice kagan. justice kagan: the two areas where we insisted the states ha buffer zones. public figure libel cases and incitement cases, in both those cases there is vy thin line between the no value speech and speech tt of great value. so the advocacies and incitement line is thin. so, too, when it comes t defamation of public figures it's ju atep from extremely valuable commentary about public figures. in those two areas we have insist on this breathing room. woer looking at this case whether we can really say that this goes a little bit to justice kavanaugh'qution as well. what's the areaf eech that we think is really going to be chilled by drawing the line in the place where this state and many other statewa to draw it? therisothing that's sort of close to true threats, but super valuable, that we ought to be woied about, is there? mr. elwood: i disagree. one of the reasons we analogize to incitement is t lguage is frequently exactly the same. we are going to eatheir damn next. we might need te

justice kagan: thank you. chief justice roberts: justice stice gorsuch: well, this court in the virginia military institute case said that gender would be an impermissible basis for discriminating against applicants there. mr. strawbridge: yes, and i -- and, obviously, the situation was at different in that it was a total exclusion if i correctly in that case. but i -- i -- i do not want concede that -- that tould ever be an appropriate place to have a sex-based characteristic. i'm just noting it's different under the precedent than race. justice gorsuch: and how about religion, r ample? there's some evidence, for example, that harvaradted its holistic admissions approach in part because it was concerned by the rgning number of jewish persons who were attending, d they were looking for a way to reduce the number of jewh persons without resorting to a quota. at least that's what some of the amici tell us. mr. strawbridge: yes. i mean, that -- that is the history, and i think it's -- it's an illustrati w putting

justice kagan? justice kagan: i would ask on a completely different question, but one notable inabout the argument here is that on both sides there'been very little discussion of what originalism suggests about this question. and i -- so i just want to ask what would a committed igalist think about the kind of race-consciousness that's at issue her general prelogar: i think that an originalist would think that this is clearly consistent with the original understanding of the fourtemendment, that universities have come forward wierful evidence that surrounding the time of enactment of the fourteenth amendment there were fednd -- and state laws that took race into account for purposes of trying to achieve the central prem the fourteenth amendment to bring african american citizens oint of equality in our society. d i think what's so notable if the court is focused on y forward with essentially no come history to support t color-blind interpretation of the constitution that would make all racial claati

chief justice roberttice kagan. justice kagan: mr. verrilli, i've been thinking a good deal about this constitutional analogue to the rehnquist principle. and your colloquy with justice alito e feel uneasy about it and i think that the reaso cause it shows how very good judges on very good courts can find it incredibly e disagree with each other. and so if justice alito asked you can it be flunked, i think what i want to ask you after hethat colloquy, is, is there a danger it's going satisfied too easily? one of us on this bench hasle written opinions as, you know, saying that other judges, her it's other judges on you know, have engaged ind policymaking rathe in law. and, i mean, is just sort of one ofhings that judges say when they really disagree wither opinion. if you say acting as a legislature, not as a co acting as a policy maker, not as a court, i mean, thesey are things -- it's not just this court, its every -- these are things that judges say to each other all the time. how is this going to be a check that's used rarely rath

that's what justice kagan is essentially saying.e you're giving this entity a pass on something very fundamental to litigation. does the person who's bringing the case even have an injury at all? she's saying, no, they didn't, and instead, the court skips over that to try and decide in its broadest possible terms that the heroes act doesn't say what the president and congress at the time thought it did. the other thing, yasmin, that i'm really struggling with is this is a court that prides itself on being textualist, meaning they read the plain language of statutes and they try to hold congress to that plain language. but here you see chief justice roberts in his majority opinion even quoting from a press conference that speaker pelosi gave in 2021 as support for the proposition that the president and the secretary of education don't have the authority to impose debt cancellation on their own. if the plain text of the statute is enough, you don't need to import statements that speaker pelosi made at a press conference in order to su

i would like to know what you have to say about kagan. host: let's get a response and i think he was talking with the senate judiciary committee holding ethical standard hearings for the supreme court. guest: it's really interesting. the recusal standard at the court for kagan and for every justice on the court, we are playing a guessing game when it comes to, historically, whether they recuse themselves from a case, why they are refusing. there has been a lot of writing in legal scholarship. they should be disclosing things proactively. when there is a potential conflict, they should be saying with that potential conflict is why they don't have to recuse themselves. right now, these refusals more or less a mystery. they don't say why they are or not recusing themselves. it's not a decision that can be challenged really. there also no reason to think there is any consistency among the justices when it comes to recusal. some justices were no longer on the court not to distant history, they publicly said i don't say why i recuse myself was

justice elena kagan spoke about the importance of this. she talked about what the impact could be not only on admissions to colleges but on society more broadly. college is a pipeline to positions at businesses. if you do not have diversity at colleges, you are less likely to have diversity in businesses. host: let's talk about student loan forgiveness. there are challenges to president biden's plan to forgive certain amounts of student loans based on other factors. what sense did you get from the arguments about how this would go? guest: there were two separate challenges by some attorneys state general, and to borrowers. one borrow -- and two borrowers. one of them has federal loans but would, not benefit to the fullest extent. they are challenging the program as it is drafted. the first hurdle that both plaintiffs have to clear is standing whether they have a legal right to sue because not everyone can go into court and say "i don't like this policy." you have to show you are injured by this policy. if one of the borrowers are injured,

justice elena kagan talked about the impact. perhaps of this. this is one of the points that she made. she talked about the impacts not just on diversity at colleges but what the impact could be on a more broadly that universities are sort of the pipeline to leadership in business is so if you don't have diversity at undergraduate colleges than you are less likely to have diversity in businesses and in society at large at the various levels. >> let's talk about a student loan forgiveness there are two separate challenges to president biden's plan to forgive certain amounts of student loans depending on other factors. where do those stands and what sense did you get from the arguments about how this would go. >> there are two separate challenges. one was brought by a group of states of republican attorneys general and the other is brought by two individual borrowers. one borrower only has private loans not federal loans. so she would not benefit from the program as it's drafted. the other one has federal loans but when a benefit to the full exten

i don’t know our galushkin kaganate or something, the cheburek kaganate announces the cheburek kaganatese. and so at least galushkin at least, clearly, nevertheless, pasties. for a long time he has been called misha shakhnazar's cherry on the cake. here we are talking with you about provocations near the zaporizhzhya nuclear power plant, which is being prepared for laying down. yes , now, uh, it’s very regular, remember some expert who told me recently. why is there a nuclear explosion, if on one side it explodes on the other monitor. today the minister of health of ukraine will show. yes , i think it will be very interesting to listen to the people of kiev, first of all, now, according to forecasts, which is keith is beyond the influence of radiation clearly understand, let's do everything possible to prevent this terrorist attack. this is clear. this is the key task that you need to do second not to create panic by piece counseling. even if something happens, it serves as a recommendation, since it is precisely those recommendations that are given in a specific period of time that are

kagan files the dissenting official. sotomayor and jackson. this is the conclusion what the court said. it has become a disturbing feature to criticize decisions for which they disagree going beyond the proper role. judiciary. today we have concluded that missouri is a proper case to this. gone through the traditional tools of decision making analysis. reasonable minds can disagree and it's important the public not be misled by some of what they're hearing about the court. there has been so much said about the court. it says the heroes act provides no authorization for the secretary of education plan, even when examined using statutory interpretation and clear congressional authority for such a program. the first look says it forgiveness is gone. >> dana: the supreme court struck down president biden's student loan forgiveness program trying to use the heroes act. the court is saying in a 6-3 decision that is not going to be allowed. there are millions of borrowers, 26 million who had applied for this program who are finding out today it is no

now justice elena kagan read her dissent, something rare but that we've seen repeatedly the past few days, yesterday with affirmative action and today in the two cases. justice kagan shot back saying the result here is that the court substitutes itself for congress and the executive branch in making national policy about student loan forgiveness. so the takeaway is that the 40 million-plus student borrowers who are excited at the prospects of getting student loan canceled, up to $20,000 in some cases, they are out of luck at least for now. and interestingly, student loan payments have been on pause. but they will resume starting october 1st. dana? >> okay. stand by for us because we want to come back to you about the other big ruling. i want to go first to the white house to cnn's arlette saenz. you're learning that the president met immediately with senior advisers after this ruling came down against him and his executive order. >> yeah. president biden has been meeting with his senior team throughout the morning. i'm told the meeting started about 15 minutes after the supreme court

host: alito and kagan were in trips together?ler: kagan and alito were on fishing trips together, they were. host: joan and raleigh, north carolina, democratic caller. caller: how are you doing? host: good morning. caller: thanks for taking my call. i just wanted to bring up, after looking at this adam schiff censure and the impeachment comings and goings with boebert and grain. -- and grain. taxpayers need to realize these are fundraising attention for the republicans and it happens on the democratic side with adam schiff will probably get rewarded for his censure with people being naÏve enough to get so upset they will send in money to these people. taxpayers need to be aware of this. it's red meat being thrown at us taxpayers to donate to these people and they feed us more of this red meat. i wanted to bring that up. host: our previous call referred to reports back in 2013, this the atlantic -- justice scalia and justice kagan are hunting buddies, really? it was reported by the atlantic. justice kagan bag yourself a dear anna

>> t responses, justice kagan.irst, prosecutions are not necessary and stevens and in free speech coalitio ts court didn't require actual prosecutions of protected speech. and in stevens, this court invalidated that law1 ars after it had been passed. so that law had been on the books for a while in free speech coalition. it had been ateast five years. in virginia versus black, the opinion holdinth statute over abroad, that law had been on the books for 35 years. so the length of time and the la of prosecutions isn't the inquiry because on a facial alnge, the facial validity of a law does not depend on the government's prosecutorial ois. >> but doesn't the prosecutorial choice have something to do with, um, wh kds of activity below shows? >> even if you look at the prosecutorial activity is relevant to that. i think there's realistic of chill here just from the fact that the government in recen years has invoked section 1324 in investigative activities. as the amicus brom the reporters committee for freedom of the p

the decision was a 3 to 6 split justices kagan, sonia sotomayor in jackson. all dissenting this morning, the high court ruled that friday that the biden administration's overstepped its authority and trying to cancel or reduce student loan debt for some millions of americans. this ruling effectively kills the 400 billion dollar debt forgiveness plan. the court held that the administration needs congress's endorsement before undertaking so costly over program. the program would have allowed eligible borrowers to council up to $20,000 in student loan debt. and there was about 43 million americans eligible to participate. the administration said that the program would have wiped out all federal student loan debt for some 20 million people. and there were several states contesting that that the administration's missouri, nebraska, iowa, arkansas, kansas, south carolina, along with 2 individuals who also filed cases in her dissent. justice elena kagan wrote that the majority of the court, quote, overrides the combined judgment of the legislative and executive bran

justice kagan then in her dissent said, look at what this court is doing it. it is not quite reading statute correctly, the chief has picked out parts of the statute that suit the majority's interests, and not reading it as a whole, and talked about the other reverberations of government protection, and hers with or the fi -- hers were the words of the opinion of a different court today, and then shortly after 11:00 a.m., chief roberts said, that is it for this term, and to paraphrase what the dissents said last year, majority is not done with the work going forward beginning in the fall. >> all right. joan biskupic witness to history today, and you will have a busy day, because everybody is going to want to hear from you to find out what you saw and felt like to be there in this momentous day. and now, over to manu raja over on capitol hill. >> yes, they are wanting to hear about what the biden administration is wanting do in hearing that the supreme court is striking down the student loan forgiveness program. and still, chuck schumer said that biden administ

we got a sharp rebuttal from justice kagan who wrote the dissenting opinion, saying the court is going far, the states here didn't even have standing. we're seeing shots being fired between these justices on their ways out of town. it seems that right now chief justice roberts is accusing the liberal minority of disbarjing -- disparaging the court and what he called misperceptions about the court and accusing them of america's perception that the court is too political. i'll tell you, people we have spoken to today already had that opinion, and it's not just coming from those dissenting opinions. in fact, we spoke to people outside here today who were fighting for the student loan forgiveness plan, katy, and here's what melissa burn had to say. >> reporter: do you think that some of those 45 million made life plans based upon the fact that they wouldn't have to pay that $25,000 in debt. >> yes, you've seen. there's been data, people have been able to finally buy a home, take a job, do elder care for families, might have mental health concerns where this debt that one good piece of news

the decision was a 3 to 6 split justices kagan, sonia sotomayor in jackson. all dissenting this morning, the high court ruled that friday that the biden administration overstepped its authority in trying to cancel or reduce the loan debt for millions of americans. this ruling effectively kills the 400 billion dollar debt forgiveness plan. the court held that the administration needs congress's endorsement before undertaking so costly, a program the program would have allowed eligible borrowers to cancel up to $20,000 in student loan debt and there was about 43 million americans eligible to participate. the administration said that the program would have wiped out all federal student loan debt for some 20 million people. there were several states contesting the administration's move, missouri, nebraska, iowa, arkansas, kansas, in south carolina, along with 2 individuals who filed cases separately in her dissent, justice elena kagan wrote that the majority of the co court, quote, overrides the combined judgment of the legislative and executive branches with the

in contrast, a group of high school friends of elena kagan handed her a box of bagels and justice kagan had such a high ethical standard that she refused to accept a box of bagels because it might look like a conflict of interest. what can you say about that? >> and michael, barbara brings up harlan crow, so allow us to introduce the reporting of propublica on the lavish vacations and gifts that harlan crow gave to justice thomas and ginni thomas over the year. over the years. how does your documentary deal with these reports? >> well, essentially, clarence thomas, someone said this in our conversation this morning here. clarence thomas is in the company, let's do it this way. as a child, he really viewed the world and himself in it as untouchable, a caste system in america. he has been working against climbing out of that untouchable status up to get the equivalent of the highest cast in america. if he had brahmin's, he would consider himself a brahmin now. what that meant in his life experience was you had to become extremely friendly with, in his case, with white wealthy people, whit

mahmut kagan is a human rights lawyer who represents refugees.he turkish authorities routinely push migrants back across the border, and that is when they are falling into the hands of violent gangs. it's very much related to the pushbacks, those violations, because it creates a fragile group and open to all forms of abuses. almost every case of torture we came across in this investigation happened after the refugees had been pushed back across the border at night. turkey hosts millions of refugees, more than any other country, but this criticism of the authorities came up again and again in our investigation. we put this allegation to the turkish government, but did not receive a response. in the face of similar accusations from human rights groups, the authorities have denied pushbacks, saying any activities to prevent illegal entry into turkey are carried out within the scope of border management. but some make it across into turkey. there is a careful operation to hand them to other smugglers to continue theirjourney. this is all too familiar

so you guys might say, oh, justice kagan disagrees with the conservatives, hey, it's a day that ends. and why. but 5 to 4 in the sba case, the fourth was chief justice roberts. and one of the points that i think really to underscore how the critique of the shadow docket are not at least strictly partizan is one of the most, you know, sort of one of the repeat players in criticizing the conservative majority has the conservative chief justice who dissented in the sbrt case, who dissented in the alabama redistricting case, who dissented a clean water case in april 2022, and his dissents are always saying the same thing. so, hey, i'm john roberts, right? i have not changed my stripes. i am absolutely sympathetic to where my conservative colleagues he's in institutionalist and he that the court's legitimacy credibility is impacted negatively by playing these games. well, and by using the sort of the emergency mechanism as a way of doing things that are supposed to be done with full throated deliberation on the merits docket. so capital punishment is a through line in this book. so inciden

as justice kagan pointed out, there was no one in front of the court that really had standing.ouri, finally, the court said they have an interest. why? because there was some agency independent from the state, funded separately, separately incorporated that might lose some money. but there was no showing that any of the parties before the court had any skin in the game. and, yet, the court reached out to strike down this law even though congress's heroes act in 2003 read quite literally gave the president the power he exercised. so activist is hardly the word for it. it's sort of extremist and rolling back the clock and really following its ideological provliveties, not like a normal court. >> professor, thank you very much. i appreciate your time, your perspective. >>> and, next, you're going to meet the men who are right now out there here in the dark protecting ukraine from missiles. they are the ones operating the american sophisticated patriot missile defense system, which is right here in ukraine right now. and has now proved successful at knocking down putin's most sophi

justice kagan is reading oral dissent from the bench, she expects roberts to make the comment.s never drawn the line as the secretary suggests among congress, the most important authority to control the purse. they are saying congress is the one that controls the purse on this. that's where they are drawing the line in this decision, the president does not have the authority to give this much money to forgive the amount of debt he wanted to forgive. they are putting the authority of the purse on congress and recognizing that authority going forward which could have implications for other cases going forward as you talk about the things he wants to do and spend money on like climate change, that could have implications going forward but the court ruling that the power of the purse lands with congress. stuart: you cover the white house and this has been one of his signature topics, something he was planning to tout as we head with the 24 election. i suspect this could end it back in court but guess not, it's the us supreme court. if the administration tries to come in with anothe

you responded to justice kagan's,. that would be aean to not strike it down. i am struggling, especially for example with a part of 13 24 here that is small decision, five to that itsf has any bag ding or abetting piece to it. it sounds like congress was covering aiding and abetti some extent. another part of this statute, if we need this one to be aiding and abetting t. what does it really cover? >> it's a differt kind of aiding and abetting. aiding and abetting violations of the preceding causes of 13 24 a one a. aiding and abetting, bringing someone to the border in violation of clause one -- within the country violation clauses two and three. that sort of aiding and abetting is covered by five. >> what is the aiding and abetting that could be aed and abetted poorer five? >> the aiding and abetting that is covered in four is assisting someone to enter or remain in the country unlawfully. that's thecore constitutional application beforethat. the way you wod olate five is if you'd aided and abetted someone who was solicitation or facilitang people to enter in

jessica, i want to talk to you about something that justice kagan said in her dissent. she said when covid hit, two secretaries serving two different presidents decided to use their heroes act authority, the 2003 law in question here, the first suspended loan repayments and interest accrual for all federally held student loans. she's speaking, of course, of secretary betsy do voss who served in the trump administration. how do you draw the distinction between what devos did and what the department of education did here under president biden? >>, why and thank you for -- yes, and thank you for having me. the distinction i would draw between secretary devos temporarily waiving loan repayments and the accrual of interest on those loans and what the secretary did here in a student loan cancelation is that a cancelation is a far more extreme measure. in fact, chief justice roberts mentioned in his opinion that the secretary's plan has modified the cited provisions only in the same sense that the french revolution modified the status of the french nobility. and that is, it ha

elena kagan said a few years ago, we're all originalists now, seeming to acknowledge how originalism, which was once a fad, had sort of become the prevailing framework for, not just conservatives, but even liberals in the judiciary, to interpret the constitution. and i that there was a panel recently at the american constitution society, a liberal counterpart to the federalist society, saying are not all originalists. do you think i take it from the book that you you have some quarrel with the notion that we should be using an originalist framework, even though there are liberals who try to their agenda now by framing arguments in originalist terms? yes, i think it's it's an important moment, an important turning point for liberals when faced with a court claiming any way to make decisions this way. and to be clear, i think these justices are originalist because it's conserver time. they're not conservatives because it's what's demanded by originalism. but nevertheless, on guns or other things, one has little choice, but sometimes make these kinds of arguments using these historical t

the decision was a 3 to 6 split justices kagan, sonia sotomayor in jackson. all dissenting this morning, the high court ruled friday that the biden administration overstepped its authority and trying to cancel or reduce student loan debt for millions of americans. this ruling effectively kills the 400 billion dollar debt forgiveness plan. now the court held that the administration needs can congress's endorsement before undertaking, so costly over program. the program would have allowed eligible borrowers to cancel up to $20,000 in student loan debt. and there was about 43 million americans a legible to participate. the minute station said that the program would have wiped out all federal student loan debt for some 20 million people. there were several states contesting the administration's move, missouri, nebraska, iowa, arkansas, kansas, in south carolina, along with 2 individuals who filed cases themselves in her dissent. justice elena kagan wrote that the majority of the court, quote, overrides the combine judgment of the legislative and executive branche

elena kagan said a few years ago, we're all originalists now, seeming to acknowledge how originalism, which was once a fad, had sort of become the prevailing framework for, not just conservatives, but even liberals in the judiciary, to interpret the constitution. and i that there was a panel recently at the american constitution society, a liberal counterpart to the federalist society, saying are not all originalists. do you think i take it from the book that you you have some quarrel with the notion that we should be using an originalist framework, even though there are liberals who try to their agenda now by framing arguments in originalist terms? yes, i think it's it's an important moment, an important turning point for liberals when faced with a court claiming any way to make decisions this way. and to be clear, i think these justices are originalist because it's conserver time. they're not conservatives because it's what's demanded by originalism. but nevertheless, on guns or other things, one has little choice, but sometimes make these kinds of arguments using these historical t

elena kagan said a few years ago, we're all originalists now, seeming to acknowledge how originalism, which was once a fad, had sort of become the prevailing framework for, not just conservatives, but even liberals in the judiciary, to interpret the constitution. and i that there was a panel recently at the american constitution society, a liberal counterpart to the federalist society, saying are not all originalists. do you think i take it from the book that you you have some quarrel with the notion that we should be using an originalist framework, even though there are liberals who try to their agenda now by framing arguments in originalist terms? yes, i think it's it's an important moment, an important turning point for liberals when faced with a court claiming any way to make decisions this way. and to be clear, i think these justices are originalist because it's conserver time. they're not conservatives because it's what's demanded by originalism. but nevertheless, on guns or other things, one has little choice, but sometimes make these kinds of arguments using these historical t

justice kagan said, i have a couple of clerks that are putting together web sites, and there is nothing artistic about it, and it is falling along the lines of the conduct, and the person who provides chairs, and it is not speech, so it is not protected by the first amendment, but the court has found here, there is speech, and expressive content here, and therefore it is entitled to first amendment protection, but it is leading to questions. how about the catering, is there an artistic expression? >> this is opening door to more and more lawsuits, right? >> yes. this case, unlike the student loan case, that is yes/no. on or off, but this further litigation. >> and this is the question of where is the line. and from gorsuch, the states may protect gay persons just as they can protect other individuals of individuals acquiring whatever products and services they choose on the same terms and conditions to other members of the publics and no doubt, innumerable goods and services that implicate the public good, ie, chairs, and at this there are no goods that are immune to the public accommod

in her, dissent justice elena kagan wrote the quote, that the court does not have a clue about how toself other than the expert agency, the decision-maker on climate policy. i cannot think of many things more frightening, and. quote >> last, year the court got into the clean air act, and this year, concurrent last month justice kagan has won it by -- the court substitutes on ideas about policy making for congresses. the court will not allow the clean water act to work, as congress instructed. >> tomorrow, june 5th, is world environment day. millions of people around the world for a singular mission of protecting and restoring the health of the planet. world environment day is recognized on june 5th to mark the united nations very first climate summit, which was held in 1972, 51 years ago tomorrow. the clean water act was established that same year in response to rampant toxic pollution that was poisoning our waterways and killing fish and making water undrinkable. lakes on swivel, and our eco systems on safe. and in the 51 years since the clean water act was established, remarkable pr

they've made the cases as a matter of law, but earlier in your intro, jim, you referred to elena kagan'secision on the student loan forgiveness. she said, you're reading the statute in your own terms. you're trying to amass power to the majority, to this court, and you're not interpreting it the way congress had written it. essentially, you're undercutting congress' power, you're undercutting the executive branch's power, and the person who wins there, or the group of people who win there is the su supermajority you're referring to. >> it is a kconsistency issue because they've said, well, this is for congress. here, you're ignoring congress, but it's a longer discussion. joan, thank you. you break it down so it is easy to understand. >>> a former trump campaign official is now cooperating with the special counsel in its investigation into 2020 election interference. we have details on that straight ahead. [clicking] when occasional heartburn won't let you sleep. [clicking] get fast relief with new tums+ heartburn + sleep support. love food back and fall asleep faster. ♪tum, tum tum tum,

dissent and she and kagan had given consent, but at the very end she said, "we shall overcome." and it was a mournful robust dissent that had just a lot of unhappiness at its core, and as i said pretty mournful, but she said, we shall overcome despite what the majority has done here, and there is a way for progress to continue, but the bulk of her dissent was essentially saying that her colleagues had staunched progress. it was really something. as i said the weight of history was so evident in the room. no one in the spectator said anything. they couldn't say anything, and you couldn't see emotion on the face of anyone including, as i said the chief justice's wife jane roberts is there, and everybody was stone faced, and when it was all over at about 10 to 11:00, chief justice said tomorrow would be the last day, and they would issue their final rulings, but nothing is going to eclipse this, and it won't eclipse it tomorrow and for many, many years. >> and arianne -- joan, sorry, you just explicitly explained what happened in court, and how emotional it was, and even t though t

the decision was a 3 to 6 split justices kagan, sonia sotomayor in jackson all sent in this morning. the high court ruled friday that the biden administration overstepped its authority in trying to cancel or reduce student loan debt for millions of americans. the ruling effectively kills a 400 billion dollar debt forgiveness plan. the court help that the administration needs congress's endorsement before undertaking. so such a costly program. the program would have allowed eligible borrowers council up to $20,000 in student loan debt. and there was about 43 million americans eligible to participate. the administration said that the program would have wiped out all federal to known for some 20 million people. there were several states contesting the administration's move, missouri, nebraska, iowa, arkansas, kansas and south carolina, along with 2 individuals who filed cases separately in her dissent, justice elena kagan wrote that the majority of the court, quote, overrides the combined judgment of the legislative and executive branches with the consequence of eliminating loan forgive

justice kagan says the statute says and congress says the secretary of education can waive or modify.hat is what they did by stepping in and saying they can't do that, the court is asserting its own authority to change what congress delegated. the majority says the opposite. majority says congress didn't give the power to forgive debt, just waive or modify. we don't think that works. it's a question of power and ideology. kristen: i want to talk about the other controversial political ruling. a colorado christian web designer cannot say no -- can say no to designing websites for same-sex couples. this decision is interesting because they frame it as a free-speech speech issue for the web designer. >> the web designer here, and by the way, she has not even yet put her business online. she says she would like to do it and she is afraid of what the colorado law might do. so there's a good argument that she doesn't even have standing to go forward. but the courts blue by that one -- blew by that one, frankly. she asked for review on the religion clause. the court said no, we are only goin

justice kagan? will chief justice roberts step in to ensure other justices do so for transparency's sake? i've said this before and it bears repeating. the problem of ethics in this closure in the supreme court can be cured before the end of the day by one person. chief justice roberts, of the roberts court, as it would go down in history, has the authority and the opportunity to step in and get this done now. rather than let this problem linger and even get worse. that it's the conduct of some of the justices. he can do it, and he should. this committee will continue to pursue this issue because it is critically important to our responsibility and to the constitution when it comes to the supreme court. a few weeks ago, chief justice roberts gave a speech where he said, and i quote, he is committed to making certain that we, as a, court adhere to the highest standards of conduct. i couldn't believe it. i thought he spoke up. maybe he is finally going to do something about. this well, he should do so