sotomayor: now may i get justice sotomayor: all right. first of all, i followed the district court's findings, the three judges, ive record. they found that the respondent'' maps -- or the respondents' map respected ional districting better than the state's map in medium compactness, continuity, respect for cal subdivisions, and the desire to keep together existing communities of interest. you dispute that. we can go into the record. there is a fight here, however, what's a continuing interest.community of you sit or you'n arguing that mobile and what's the other county? mr. lacour: mobile and baldwin justice sotomayor: baldwin, that they're a community of interest. why? they hav think it's french and spanish background. just so happens that all of those people are white. and you've never split those coies. the black belt has all black ople or not all but mostly black people. mr. lacour: fifty-six justice sotomayor: so -- mr. lacour: -- 56.6 percent. justice sor: yeah. mobile and baldwin have a majority white. that black community, thro t

justice sotomayor: mr. park, this issue of when this will end , nine states have chosen to rely just e neutral -- completely race neutral, with race being not even a smal factor anywhere. not all of them have been as a result of the peoplng, it has been the systems themselves choosing this. isn't that the case in florida? mr. burr: that's my understanding according to their executive order. many states were its institution by instition. georgia, for example. justice sotomayor: now even your 25 years as a set deadline, it was an expectation. what we know, we have nine states who have tried it, and each of them, as i have ioned earlier, white admissions have either remained the same or increase, and clearly, in s institutions, the numbers were under -- for underrepresented groups as fallen dramatically, correct? esther burkle and that's my understanding. justice sotomayor: we aow is in those 25 yearial disparities have grown dramatically. segregation has grown, the disparities beincomes has own, and so has th

justice sotomayor: no. mr. strae: -- to disclaim. justice sotomayor: no. i'm just sayingow that representation for asian americans, for example, has growatically over time. as their numbers in the population have increased, so have their admissions numbers. but i'm just saying, if 't have proportionality, and no one's seeking that because that would be a racial classification, if we have improvement, all i see in your models is that we step backwards, we don't step forward. mr. strawbridge: i think i disagree with that for a couple reasons. first of all -- justice sotomayor: well, the district court -- chief e roberts: why don't you tell us what the reasons are. rawbridge: well, first of all, the district court basically conflated the educational benefi diversity, which is actually the interest that -- tutter recognizes, with raw representation ous. and i don't think those two things can be tied, and i don't think there's any evidence in the record by unc, which is supposedar the burden of proof under stric

justice sotomayor: so -- mr. lacour: -- 56.6 percent. justice sotomayor: yeah.obilealdwin have a jority white. that black community, through the decades, hassplit three or four ways. now the question is, what the district court did was to look at that community and say: it black, but that's irrelevant to what constitutes a community of interest. it's not merely its race. it's its socioeconomic background, it's educational level, it's occupation. it's all of the things that one would t to define a community of interest. and that community of interest should be held together becaus just like mobile and bal assuming -- and thrict court didn't -- held that you hadn't met your burden on that ac being a community of interest, but even if you want to keep it that way, my questi to keep it that way, my question to you is, assume i accept that as a community of interest. why isn't the map that the strict court relying on race-neutral? mr. lacour: there's a lot justice sotomayor: it's looking at community of interest. if you -- and i think wh historically it -- the mapst

justice sotomayor? justice sotomayor: i find it interesting that you're touting dr. imai's studies when, below, u vehemently objected to his studies basis that the studre incomplete and didn't take into account all of alabama's guidelines. mr. lacour: yes, your honor. and that's a very easy answer ive. preexisting district lines as traditional boundarieso speak. he did not. and so his mapn't reveal -- justice sotomayor: well, that begs the question. mr. lacour: but plaintiffs, none of their map drawers cared a all about preexisting district lines. so they took into account -- he took into account the same gs they were taking into account, and when he did, withou putting race into account, that's the one thing he didn' into account, then you come back with maps that come nowhose to creating a second majority-black district, which shows that race was the criteria and that cou not be compromised. i mean, ixtbook predominance. we couldnever drawn those maps constitutionally. and, again, just to get back to, the general confusion here, it puts us in an obviou rock and a h

justice sotomayor: ok. chief justice roberts: i d't not, justice jackson.shed or justice jackson: yes's fine. thank you. chief justice roberts: thank you, mr. elwood. >> thank you. >> t you. maybe please the court. true threats have always been osecuted without protection by the first amendment. petitioner now seeks to impose a specific intent elemenon this inquiry. that's required neither by history nor ecent. doing soou enable more harm and less valuable discourse. that's because a serious exeson of an intent to cause unlawful physical violence directly causes life-changing has. and does not contribute t marketplace of ideas. mr. weiser: regardless of what the perpettor was thinking. requiring specific intent in cases of threatening stalkers would immunize stalkers who are untethered from reality. itou also allow devious stalkers to escape countability by insisting that they meant nothing by thr harmful statements. this matters because threats made by stalkers terrorize victims. and for good reason. 90% o

justice sotomayor: exactly what he said. i think you have made the point, but i want to underscore it for myself, whicisf you don't have some sort of subjective intent in a circumstantial case, you are ki in in the objective reasonable viewer a sort obi to whatever that jury thinks might be -- the community standard. and okor video game person, player, or a rapper it's very diert thing than it would be for a nonparent. mr. elwood: i agree. judge floyd on the fourth circuit has a good separate inn on this in united states vs. white where he talks abo essentially minority viewpoints, minority religions, frge speech, fringe art tends to be viewed as threatening to people who are unfali with t which is i think the reason why jehovah'witnesses are petitioners in about 30% of free speechas because it's a minority religion which is faliar and seems weird and threatening to the residents of new haven, connectic. justice toyor: more of a reason you have to let in people to explain the basis of their innt correct? or knowledge. mr. el

clearly justice sotomayor sees it differently than the majority did. this is about compelling free speech to be something the government wants it to be not what somebody personally believes. this business owner said she will serve all people. justice sotomayor has a fear this decision will be used to say something totally different. so pretty clear 6-3 split. it appears that there is some reading there the bench going on now. we don't have the student loan case which we'll get any second. >> dana: thank you so much on that one. we await the student loan decision as well. we'll let you continue to read through it and get back to jonathan turley here. what about somebody watching this who would say that doesn't make sense, no matter what sort of gender you claim you are or what your sexuality is, if you go into a grocery store and you want to buy something, you just go ahead and buy it and they have to serve you. explain the distinction of this free speech issue about the custom part of this cake -- website design, excuse me. >> that's a critical distinc

but justice sotomayor is reading from the bench. she is reading her dissent, and this a full throated fiery dissent, and she is lashing out at the court, and typically they are respectful, and this is respectful, but it is very, very disappoint and very angry in the way that this decision will really reverberate she believes to expand inequality. i will read you a little part of the dissert. she says that the court subverts equal protection by further entrenching inequality in education, and the very democratic part of our pluralistic society. and because it is not grounded in fact, and it is intervening in the 14th amendment, i dissent. and her thought is that this is going to lead to the detriment of undergraduate education and the future of those students who would have gotten a better undergraduate education if it had not been struck down as it did today, and so she has a biting dissent, and angry about what this decision will mean in the years and the decades ahead for failing to erase racial inequality, and she has maintained

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

sonia sotomayor is right, we not a race free society. we have to acknowledge it and act on it. kristen: both the root of the decision and what we can do going forward will be explored, but sally, let me get your reaction. sally: absolutely. the content of today's decision goes against history, facts, and their own president. we know the benefits of diversity are well documented in addressing restoring segregation and the educational benefits documented by robust research. i should americans have consistently benefited from affirmative action. not a single student testified to being harmed by race conscious policies. in fact, i was one of the eight student alumni that testified to its importance. there's so much work left to do to address real barriers, but that was not seen in any of the decision that came out today. maria: i agree, it is disappointing but not surprising. i think that you have seen a trend not just with these two cases but the two cases that preceded it. it has been intent on overturning affirmative action and one of the things to remember that despite the ruli

and sonja sotomayor says what a difference five years has made. the difference, is you have three new justices on the court. it's pretty clear what she's saying right there. >> the makeup of the court is so different and the tone these justices have used in today's decision and yesterday's on a affirmative action, it's striking. these are justices that clearly are so far apart, and really sharply divided on these important social issues of the day. normally, you know, that might happen behind the scenes, it's playing out in public in writing in these decisions and really powerful ways. and, the justice sotomayor is making sort of a large argument, sort of the parade of horribles that she lays out, that will flow from today's decision. but it's interesting, just gorsuch is very honed in on the idea that the state of colorado stipulated, which means it agreed, to a number of things, and i think that that might have tipped the scales in this case. he writes here, savannah, the parties have stipulated that ms. smith seeks to engage in expressive activ

elie, i am seeing a line from sotomayor's dissent, and gorsuch is still reading from the majority. today, the first time, a business is granted the constitutional right to refuse service to a protected class. i am wondering what is the difference of a wedding website and a wedding case, and this is getting to the 2018 case. >> and that is a great question. what is speech and conduct. and this an argument that was hotly debated at oral argument. if you are creating a website, are you expressing anything? 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 th

justice sotomayor wrote in dissent that the decision rolls back decades of progress.hange much in california because of proposition 209. >> abc 7 news reporter leann melendez here. that could give the country a clue as to how this will unfold in the ramifications. >> 27 years of experience, so we know a thing

justice kagan wrote a dissent in the student loan case, and justice sotomayor case. i will read you in justice kagan's plan, she says in every respect, the court has exceeded the proper role in governance, and the first overreach is deciding it at all, and disputing the standing, and she says that the court is acting as if it is a arbiter of political and policy disputes rather than of cases and controversies, and hitting hard at the conservative majority here. and then we heard again from justice sotomayor of the second day in a row reading dissent, and she said at the end, i dissent rather than the typical i respectfully dissent. and there a notice that says some services may be denied to same sex couples, and goes on the warn that it is going to potentially leading to business owners and creative types to refusing to serve international couples or others. and this was pushed back by judge gorsuch and that straight couples only conjured out of thin air, but you can see again both on the bench and in paper, the real divisions this court, and the tensions of this cou

you can see that he's calling out dissent like we saw from justice sotomayor today in her dissent over gay rights decision where she said it was heartbreaking. she is telling the court they're going too far, this is a slippery slope, they're making the wrong decision. they're using very strong planning here, and we even saw that inside. producers who were inside the court today as they were going through these opinions or even yesterday, we've had a producer who told me that justice jackson stared blankly ahead while justice thomas went over his opinion. there's a lot of strife here between these justices and we know chief justice roberts, it's really a high priority that he wants the american public to see the court as it was, an apolitical body deciding on the laws as the text allows. unfortunately that's unraveling and we can see that in public polling. >> talking about student debt, here's what elena kagan report, every court receives its limited role in our nation's governances. roberts said it's become a disturbing feature of recent opinions to criticize the decisions with which

chief justice roberts: justice sotomayor. justice sotomayor: mr. verrilli, i'm trying to organize opinion if i were to rule in your favo and you say some things are within bouome things are not. how would you write it? i mean, to answer some of the questions my colleagues okay?d and to knock it down, i guess, first, you would say take petitioners' broadest view he legislature means state legislators, not state court judicial review.'t be any that's easy to write and say there obviously has to be judicial review because it's part of the regulation process. at comes after that? mr. verrilli: so -- justice sotomayor: how do we deal with his distinction between ural and substantive? how do we deh this questit this court -- mr. verrilli: i think the court coite a very -- sorry. justice sotomayor: why we don' reach the question of whether this court went too far with legislating and not reviewing? mr. verrilli: i think the court could write a ve straightforward opinion, and i think a good to start would be the following quote from justice hughes's unanim

the first is sonia sotomayor talking about being an affirmative action baby.e next is justice clarence thomas speaking to "60 minutes" in 2007 about viewing it in diametrically opposed way. here they are. >> i am a product of affirmative action. i am the perfect affirmative action baby. my test scores were not comparable to that of my colleagues at princeton or yale. but if we had gone through the traditional numbers route of those institutions, it would have been highly questionable whether i would have been accepted. >> honestly, honestly believed that yale thought that having a kid who came from working people in the south, who had grown up through segregation, that this kid who had prospered, who had done well every single place he'd ever been, whether an all-white school, all-black school, had always done well, he will do well here. and it will benefit both him and yale. that's what i thought. now that's what you do when you're 21, 22 years of age. you can make a mistake. well, that isn't what it was converted to. >> what was it converted to? >> it was co

. >> reporter: on the other side, the court's only latina justice, season that sotomayor, who tread a path from the bronx. >> one of the poorest neighborhoods in the united states when i was growing up. yet none of those challenges have stopped me reaching where i have. i attribute it all, all of it to my education. >> reporter: today, sotomayor and thomas in a rare move, each read their opinions just as thomas defending the court's decision writing, "while i'm painfully aware of the social and economic ravages which have befallen my race and all who suffer discrimination, i hold out endearing hope that this country will live up to its principles that all men are created equal, are equal citizens, and must be treated equally under the law." >> he has been working for 30 years, playing the long game on the court, to overturn affirmative action. he read from the bench with pride. >> reporter: in a skating dissent, sotomayor responding, "the devastating impact of this decision cannot be overstated. ignoring racial inequality will in the make it disappear." polls show americans overwhelmi

first let's start about justice sotomayor, more of her dissenting opinion. "the decision threatens to vulcannize the market and allow the exclusion of other groups from services. a web designer could refuse to create a wedding websites for an interracial couple," what you were referring to, joan, and neil gorsuch, "the dissent refuses to acknowledge where its reasoning leads. in a world that as chief judge timkovich cited a muslim movie director could make a film with a zionist message that could compel an atheist muralist to celebrate evangelical we'll have and they could require a gay website designer to create web sites for a group advocating against same-sex marriage so long as speakers would accept commissions from the public with different messages." >> this really is the battle of the slippery slopes, isn't it? which one has the more persuasive argument as to what could ultimately be the end result of what they have now ruled. a plain way of speaking about this ruling is we normally think of if you're open to the public, that means you're open to the

justice sonia sotomayor acknowledged as much, writing this court stands in the way and rolls back decades of precedent and momentous progress. the devastating impact of this decision can nat be overstated. the majority's vision of race neutrality will entrench racial segregation in higher education because racial inequality will persist so long as it is ignored. as for the conservative majority, six of them chose to side with the petitioner, in both of today's cases. students for fair admissions, which contrary to its name is not actually students. but rather a group led by a man named edward bluhm, a conservative legal strategist who for many years has been bent on killing consideration of race in college admissions. well, he finally got a court majority that would give him his way. but according to chief justice john roberts' majority opinion, nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant's discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it from discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise. i mean, so long as apiring students writ

and when he ended, sotomayor spoke. she is the first latina on the court, and the most senior of the liberal justices which is why she began speaking and read this oral dissent, and she spoke about the profound mistake that the majority was making here. she said it would close the doors of opportunity to people across the nation for schools, for military and it would have reverberations. she talked about the true promise of the equal protection clause and how it has always had the component that was race-conscious, and that the guarantee of equal protection necessarily meant that people's race had to be taken into consideration. i should say that is the fundamental tension at the core of this case. is taking race into account a form of racial discrimination as the chief justice believes. he has said the way to stop race discrimination is to stop race. and that is the core, but justice sotomayor said that she is the only justice who has been wearing a mask, because of covid, and so she removes mask and she starts speakin

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 di

tenemos a chirla al igual que el ex presidente barack obama y otras personas hablaron de la juez sotomayorde la corte está décadas de retroceso en el nivel tras empezar y a nivel local estudiantes de universidades también se manifestaron luego de esta decisión que considera la raza al momento de realizar admisiones. >> hay que hablar de las temperaturas que se esperan que alcanzan los 100° en algunas ciudades del área de la bahía a partir del viernes y por esa razón el servicio de meteorología nacional emite advertencia por calor excesivo para el valle central, vamos a ver más detalles. >> el calor se empieza a sentir ya con temperaturas desde 97° y se espera que las temperaturas llegan a 105° la próxima semana. >> y las temperaturas se espera que estén entre los 90° alrededor de los 105° para áreas de interiores. >> además recomienda tener precaución al exponerse al sol porque los riesgos de salud podrían ser muy altos. >> permanecer en un lugar cerrado o en la sombra y siempre usar un protector solar y siempre estar al pendiente de sus mascotas incluyendo a los niños. >> en días como y d

justice sonia sotomayor also crediting affirmative action with her success in life, saying the court's decision, quote, rolls back decades of precedent and momentous progress in this country. and today, the moment at the white house, when the president was asked, is this a rogue court? he paused, the silence in the roosevelt room, and then he said, "this is not a normal court." abc's terry moran leading us off tonight from the supreme court. >> reporter: tonight, the end of an era in american law and american life. the supreme court in a 6-3 decision ending affirmative action in higher education as we know it. chief justice john roberts joined by the court's five other conservatives, declaring that the admissions policies at harvard and the university of north carolina violate the constitution's guarantee of equal protection of the laws. roberts writing that the school's affirmative action policies "unavoidably employ race in a negative manner" and "involve racial stereotyping." under the constitution, roberts added, "eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it." but

la jueza sonia sotomayor, quien se opuso, seÑalÓ, la decisiÓn de hoy retrocede dÉcadas de precedentes ya no puede usarse de forma limitada en las emisiones universitarias para lograr beneficios crÍticos. el presidente se opuso fuertemente a la decisiÓn de la corte y anunciÓ un paquete de acciones ejecutivas quedarÁ ayuda a universidades. el secretario de educaciÓn miguel cardona nos dijo que se tomaron precauciones para la posible decisiÓn. >> entre 45 dÍas tendremos recursos disponibles para las universidades y los presidentes. reportera: los estudiantes de las minorÍas podrÁn seguir narrando experiencia raciales en sus solicitudes de admisiÓn, que suele incluir ensayos personales. >> pueden considerar las cercanÍas, no se puede considerar arrasada por ser atrasa Únicamente. >> " estados unidos ha se fundÓ por mÉritos y necesitamos revivir el mÉrito en este paÍs", dijo un precandidato presidencial republicano. el expresidente trump dijo que la decisiÓn permitirÁ que el paÍses sea mÁs competitivo en el mundo, mientras los republicanos celebran la decisiÓn de la corte suprema, el secre

in the dissenting opinion today, justice sonia sotomayor wrote the following.ink it is hogwash. truth is that asian students are being discriminated against because of this racial inequality in admissions. it is not racial equality to deny admission to better students, to merit, to students that have higher merit in their application and that's what's happening to asian students and to a lesser extent to white students. i've heard a number of if harvard does away with, and harvard was one of the defendants in the lawsuit, if they do away with a race—based admissions policy, 43% of the students will be asian at harvard. that's based on merit. that's the way it should be. it should not be a system that discriminates against people because of the colour of their skin or their ethnicity or their background in other ways. we want to look at merit and admit people to universities based on merit. about students who come from a disadvantaged background? disadvantaged background ? according to disadvantaged background? according to the new york times after michigan band

cuenta y expresar esos sentimientos estÁ entre nuestras libertades mÁs preciadas, la jueza sonia sotomayorcio el derecho constitucional a negarse a servir a miembros de una clase. luis: la decisiÓn tendrÁ un impacto a la comunidad homosexual del paÍs, por seis votos contra tres en la corte digo que una diseÑadora buen de colorado tenÍa el derecho de rehusar un trabajo sobre matrimonios del mismo sexo por contradecir su valores religiosos, colorado hay una ley que prohÍbe la discriminaciÓn por orientaciÓn sexual, la mayorÍa conservadora de la corte digo que la primera enmienda de la constituciÓn que protege la libertad de expresiÓn prohÍbe que el estado obligue a lore smith a crear mensajes con los que estÁ en desacuerdo. >> es mi derecho creer a la peluquera creer. luis: algunos cristianos sienten que la corte reafirmÓ su libertad religiosa. >> pues, yo no harÍa algo donde tengo la convicciÓn bÍblica de que no lo debo hacer. luis: opinando por la mayorÍa el juez escribiÓ que colorado quiere deshacer su conciencia en un tema de mayor importancia, mientras que la jueza sotomayor en desacuerd

but justice sonia sotomayor wrote a dissenting opinion saying, quote, today the court, for the first time in its history, grants a business open to the public. a constitu right to refuse to serve members of a protected class. the decisions are being seen as a win for religious right, but a big defeat for gay rights. and it comes on the final day of pride month. many in the lgbtq community worry this opens the door to more discrimination. ktvu brooks jarocz joins us now live from the newsroom. after speaking with those who say the supreme court got it wrong. well, lgbtq and civil rights groups call this a license to discriminate and claim the high court has ignored years of precedent. it is a departure from the courts. expand option of lgbtq rights, most notably giving same sex couples the right to marry in 2015 and in 2020, announcing a decision that protects gay, lesbian and transgender people from employment discrimination. while the supreme court says today's ruling is based on the first amendment and limited to the facts of the case, lgbtq advocates and civil rights organizations

that was present in the dissent yesterday from justice sotomayor and justice jackson. i think that it doesn't supersede the fact that taking kind of a unilateral approach to this and wiping out race-based affirmative action will set a lot of people back in this country. i was someone that saw the side of the asian american students and the data that they presented, which are that they clearly had been discriminated against to some degree. colleges like in harvard statements will hopefully find some way to work around this to make sure people that have been disenfranchised and underserved in this country to have a way to get to the top universities so we have more barack obamas and michelle obamas. it has to be a holistic approach to making education better so you have more kids that don't need a helping hand and getting to those top places. >> martha: sean, what do you say to that? let's also dig in on the court's decision today about relieving an enormous student debt program that was judged unconstitutional as it was presented and implemented by the white house. >> y

justice sonia sotomayor said that the decision rolls back decades of precedent and momentous progress and a separate dissent. ketanji brown jackson. the court's first black female justice call decision truly a tragedy for assault. the supreme court had twice upheld race conscious college admission programs in the past 20 years, including as recently as 2016 at arguments in late october, all 6 conservative justices expressed doubts about the practice which hat been upheld under supreme court decisions reaching back to 1978 now president biden is set to address the court's decision coming up at 9.30. we will bring that to you live. what happens back to you. all right. thank you very much. to me. and now joining us to discuss more on this is professor roy little with uc college of law, san francisco. yes, professor of little, thank you so much for joining us once again. always a pleasure to talk with you. >> i want try to clarify a little bit about what your reporter just said. the rendered a more careful decision. they did not say you cannot consider race as a factor it's not as you can

justice sotomayor wrote a blistering dissent, and justice ketanji brown jackson, who recused herself from the harvard case because of ties to the school wrote this in dissent on north carolina, "with let them eat cake obliviousness today, the court pulls the ripcord and announces blind by all legal fiat, but erasing it so in law does not make it so in life." president biden, meantime, offered this. >> we cannot let this decision be the last word. we cannot let this decision be the last word. while the court can render a decision, it cannot change what america stands for. >> he also said this is not a normal court, but later restated that saying this court has done more to unravel basic rights and basic decisions than any court in recent history that said, the ruling leaves two back doors. one, it does not apply to military academies. and two, admissions offices can consider race as mentioned in application essays, something that justice sonia sotomayor in her dissent called a false promise to save face, in her words. no one is fooled. cnn was in the room where this opinion was read a

and again, justice jackson, justice sotomayor call him out for it. i think there's a way in which he's thinking if you're an applicant to any university now i think you're supposed to hint at your racial history and your identity the same way donald trump declassifies classified documents. you can sort of do it with your mind and hope that the colleges figure it out.gu i mean that's clearly to the extent there's an escape hatch here, i guess that's it. but, again, i just think to melissa's point, the utter cynicism of saying, you know, that this is what, you know, the reconstruction amendments that the radical abolitionists who wrote those amendments were trying to do, the congress that passed clearly race conscious remedial efforts and the entire history, justice jackson's minority dissenting opinion here is a master class on the history of racism, red lining, the g.i. bill, getting loans, share cropping. it's all in there, and the idea that all of that just goes away, poof, because if you somehow hint in yourus essay that that part of your t story,

justice sotomayor say -- >> it's what many are contemplating. we've recently heard this last saturday was a year to the day of the dobbs decision where there was opinion about this should not be construed to exclude x, y and z and it's sparked conversations about what the dobbs decision may mean in other context. simply we have this scenario here. one of the things the security has looked to to do is clarify confusion, there's a debate between two circuits, different states or different issues. we can order our lives in such a way we can follow the precedent in a consistent way across the united states of america. what appears to be a fine it in and fixed rule, on the other, including a footnote on the military, it can lead to confusion and additional lawsuits to seek that clarification. i'd watch for other clarifying moments in litigation based on this very opinion, even to perhaps their best effort to try to be clear, what is clear is that there will still be more litigation. >> if you're a student applying for college, it probably means peopl

justice sotomayor wrote this in her dissent. the supreme court reads some services may be denied to same sex couples. is she right? how do you see the impact of this decision on the lgbt issue? >> it's profoundly impactful, wolf. i do agree with justice sotomayor because the effect of this is not going to be limited to this one business. it's going to be broader, and she writes about the stigma of being turned away and some of the compelling stories that we know about. for example, she includes a footnote about a same-sex couple where they refuse to provide burial services in the manner that was requested, and as a result one of the memorials had to be canceled. it's going to have a real life impact. i think it is extraordinary for the supreme court to say essentially for the first time as the justice points out that a group can be turned away and that this stigma can be faced, so very significant. >> let me bring michael waldman into this conversation. in three major opinions this term over the last few days affirmative action,

if we go back to the obama administration, right after site sotomayor was appointed,, how much influence did he have about sotomayor being appointed and if we go further about recusing themselves, the supreme court justice kagan was a solicitor general for obama and she did not recuse yourself on obamacare which affected this country in a lot of ways. there needs to be more scrutiny and definitely the supreme court should be held to the same standard as the lower courts. 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 confli

just advertise sotomayor the court is rolling back momentous progress. holding so the court cements a superficial role of color blindness as a constitutional principle in a segregated society where race has always mattered and continues to matter. a clear split. race as a fact or for admissions not allowed in higher ed.. >> dana: thank you for the quick look. let's bring in roger severino, former director of the office of civil rights in the trump administration. you have followed this case very closely, roger. i assume you are not surprised. what are the real world implications for universities now after this decision? >> this is fantastic news particularly for asian-americans. remember, they were the ones who were artificially kept low and being punished by harvard who gave low personality scores and less likely to be kind. all the subjective buzz words to say we have too many asians. that's what was going on. ashian americans are the big winners here. a man was instrumental in bringing this result. we'll see what harvard and unc does in response. i fe

and that of justices jackson and sotomayor and formerly of justice ginsburg. to justice roberts and the others who joined him, brown versus board of education was a great moment in american history, declaring the 14th amendment required equal protection and not separate but equal schooling and other programs in the united states and set off the civil rights era. that was a great moment. but that was only about stopping racial discrimination. any kind of effort to overcome the effects of racial discrimination are not allowed in his view. to justices jackson and sotomayor, this is -- and thurgood marshall, this is wrong thinking. we have had several hundred years of discrimination against african americans in particular, and we must find means to correct for that. they are ongoing. they haven't stopped. affirmative action in higher education began exactly for that reason in the 1970s, all across the country, every selective university tried to become more diverse as part of an effort in the country to grapple with the history and ongoing affects of discriminatio

quote, imagine -- this is from justice sotomayor. imagine a same-sex couple bruises the public market with their child. the market could be on lane owing or in a shopping mall. some stores sell products that are custom sized and expressive. the family sees a notice announcing that services will be refused for same-sex weddings. what message does that send? that we live in a society with social castes. it says to the child evident of the same-sex couple that their relationship is not squall to -- fall to others. and there are some public places where they can be themselves and somewhere they cannot. i know from reading your memoir that is adapted for younger audiences that that is retraumatizing. that is the trigger, the shame trigger to the journey that so much men and women take when they come out in the first place. this is a profound damaging and devastating opinion. your reaction. >> yeah, i fund out about the ruling as i was getting my kids ready to go shopping today. and was trying to ignore twitter while i was in target and di

in dissent with her outnumbered liberal colleagues, justice sonia sotomayor called the ruling profoundlyrong, saying it endows certain public businesses with "a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class." and she offered her own examples of what might follow. a website designer could equally refuse to create a wedding website for an interracial couple, for example. a stationer could refuse to sell a birth announcement for a disabled couple because she opposes their having a child. for lori smith, who says her religious beliefs compel her refusal to serve gay couples with their wedding websites, vindication. >> free speech is for everyone. and the court affirmed today that the government cannot force anyone to say something it doesn't believe. >> reporter: colorado's attorney general, dismayed. >> when a business opens its doors to the public, they've got to serve everybody. today, for the first time, there's now an exception to that rule. and that exception's going to do untold damage. >> whit: terry moran, beyond just this one case, just the past 24 hours, the

writing for the majority, chiefjusticejohn roberts wrote that: butjustice sonia sotomayor, who authored the dissent, asserted that the decision rolls back decades of precedent and progress. meanwhile, presidentjoe biden had this to say. i also believe that while talent, creativity and hard work are everywhere across this country, not equal opportunity — it is not everywhere across this country. we cannot let this decision be the last word. unintelligible we cannot let this decision be the last word. earlier, i spoke to us secretary of education miguel cardona on the impact of today's decision. secretary, thank you so much forjoining us on bbc news. you've written it today's decision was that the country back decades. what impact do you think it will have on couege you think it will have on college admissions? look, i think the decision today took away a very important tool that university leaders use to ensure diversity on campus. students learn best in a diverse learning environment and the supreme court decision took that tool away. however, what it didn't take away is the intent to e

i think justice sotomayor said it best. what we're going to focus on at the department of education is working very closely with our higher education institutions to make sure they have clarity around what the supreme court decision does and does not say. we are scouring through the 200 pages today to make sure that within 45 days, they have guidance, they have tools, they have resources. wolf, we're convening within weeks here at the department of education a national summit on educational opportunity and response to this scotus decision and we're going to produce by september and publish best practices around college admission practices to ensure across the country that our students know that this administration's behind them and we support them making it into college. >> the supreme court will rule on the biden student loan forgiveness plan perhaps as soon as tomorrow. are you optimistic that will be upheld and if it isn't, how will that impact borrowers? >> yes. it's a big decision that we're expecting there. we feel co

justice sotomayor has been outspoken in the past saying using other methods to ensure diversity won'tork. >> it's not that i don't believe it works, i don't think the statistics show it works. >> when california banned affirmative action in 1996, uc berkeley said black and hispanic representation on their campus dropped by 50%, but justice clarence thomas, one of two black justices on the high court spoke in personal terms too, saying he believes the constitution is color blind. while i am painfully aware of the social and economic ravages which have be fallen my race and all who suffer discrimination, i hold out hope all men are created equal, are equal citizens and created equal before the law. justice ketanji brown jackson the first black woman in the court pushed back in a separate dissent, bashing the majority opinion as a let them eat cake obliviousness, deeming race irrelevant in law does not make it so in life. the supreme court saying u.s. military academies can continue to take race in consideration as a factor in admissions, essentially exempting military schools from the r

justice sotomayor joined by the other liberals. they seized that.ging diversity on college campuses. she wrote the supposed recognition that universities can in some situations consider race in application essays is nothing but an attempt to put lipstick on a pig. she said this decision will somewhere a devastating impact, and it could be overstated. the two african american jurists on this court sitting on polar sides of the issue. we heard from justic

was happening here. >> such a fascinating dichotomy specifically between clarence thomas and sonia sotomayortwo people who at different points of their lives benefited from affirmative action. clearly both of them very successful. they both went to yale law school in the '70s. yet they have very different views of this issue. >> that's exactly right. you know, we see the polls find that the country is very divided on this. but that, you know, again -- >> i am sorry to interrupt you. students for fair admissions who are the folks who brought the suit, are speaking. let's listen. >> today's decision has started a new chapter in the saga of the history of asian americans in this country. it marks the promise of new beginning, a resurgence of the principles of the american dream, and a return to the egalitarian principles for all in this shining city on a hill. many people have asked me why i chose to speak out publicly for affirmative action, especially amidst the potential backlash. my answer is simple. if no one is standing up to speak out against the injustices faced by our community, then o

the justices were split. 63 justices, kagan, jackson, sonia sotomayor, all scenting, the supreme court rule to end affirmative action in college admissions saying that it violates the equal protection law. the supreme court making a decision on this case, students for fair admissions versus harvard and the university of north carolina. the new ruling overturns decades of precedent and a 2003 supreme court decision. the group argued that those universities policy violates the 14th, amendment's equal protection clause by not guaranteeing racial neutrality now is to to shuns of higher education can not use race as a factor in missions. we're still learning more about how universities and colleges will move foot forward. chief justice john roberts said that for too long, universities have quote, concluded wrongly that the touchstone of an individual's identity is not challenges, bested skills, bills or lessons learned, but the color of their skin, our constitutional history does not tolerate that in dissent. justice sonia sotomayor said that the decision rolls back decades of precedent and

>> yeah, i like justice sotomayor a lot, but i disagree with her. one racial group was given a lower standards and asian-americans were given a higher standard, that is racial discrimination against the 14th amendment. it's a rare time and i think the justices would never admit to this, but public polling sometimes matches up with the right legal decision are. >> sandra: i wonder what the discussion is in the halls of the supreme court today, garrett. >> trying to get out of here. >> and you hear about the surprising friendships, we know ruth bader ginsburg and scalia and checking out the opera. i'm sure they know how to work with people with diverse points of view and these are some of the greatest legal minds in the country. >> sandra: and back to charles payne and his point, let's start from the ground up here, let's improve the education system so that this can be merit-based and all races can thrive. >> 100%, and integrated into sotomayor and judge jackson's dissent, but we should all endeavor to improve education from the pre-k up to the colle