the practice, the top of the university on the university of north carolina, press the button and his democratic party have condemned the decision, while republicans welcomed it, mostly in jordan, the pulse or 2 of the oldest universities in the united states. harvard and the university of north carolina have used race as one of the many factors to admit potential qualified students. but a group of asian american students suit u. n. c and harvard, claiming the practice, denied them access to an elite education in favor of lots are qualified african american and latino applicants. on thursday, the us supreme court agreed ruling 6 to 3 that using raise as a factor violated the 14th amendment to the constitution. and the 1964 civil rights, while opposing groups of students reacted to the ruling on the court steps. the man behind the student's law suits celebrate these obligations compel the removal of all racial and ethnic classification boxes from undergraduate and post graduate application forms. the incoming president of harvard said the school is now reworking the way it admits new s

considering the race of applicants to the side on you admissions, it says the policy validates the constitution lawsuits a challenge to practice a common university on the university of north carolina. but the quotes decision has in few related to summit minority students. awesome jordan has more of 2 of the oldest universities in the united states. harvard and the university of north carolina have used race as one of the many factors to admit potential qualified students. but a group of asian american students suit u. n. c and harvard, claiming the practice, denied them access to an elite education in favor of lots are qualified african american and latino applicants. on thursday, the us supreme court agreed ruling 6 to 3 that using race as a factor violated the 14th amendment to the constitution. and the 1964 civil rights . while opposing groups of students reacted to the ruling on the court steps, the man behind the student's law suits celebrate these obligations compel the removal of all racial and ethnic classification boxes from undergraduate and post graduate application forms. the incoming president of harvard said the school is now reworking the way it admits new students,

the race of applicants to the side on you admissions. it says the policy violates the constitution. lawsuit said, challenge. the fact is at harvard university on university of north carolina, for the quotes decision has infuriated some minority students. it's been used to raise the number one or 2 students in colleges. wasn't. jordan has more of 2 of the oldest universities in the united states. harvard and the university of north carolina have used race as one of the many factors to admit potential qualified students. but a group of asian american students suit u. n. c. and harvard cleaning the practice, denied them access to an elite education in favor of lots are qualified african american and latino applicants. on thursday, the us supreme court agreed ruling 6 to 3 that using raise as a factor violated the 14th amendment to the constitution. and the 1964 civil rights, while opposing groups of students reacted to the ruling on the court steps. demand behind the students lawsuits celebrate these obligations compel the removal of all racial and ethnic classification boxes from undergraduate and post graduate application forms. the incoming president of harvard said the s

the supreme court's ruling of desk against using race as a factor against culture mission, the case stemming from two lawsuits, one from -- against harvard university and the other against the university of north carolina. we will be hearing more response to t sreme court ruling on race and college admissions in 15 minutes, 2 p.m. eastern time as a group soon for fair admission, the group that challenge the race based admissions. press conference -- holds the press conference. president biden is also reacting to the news that -- of the supreme court decision. here are his remarks. >> 45 years -- for 45 years, the united states supreme court has recognized the freedom to decide how to recognize diverse student bodies. in case after case including recently, just as a few years ago in 2016, the court has affirmed or reaffirmed this view that colleges could use race not as is the determining factor for admissions but as one of the factors among mainly -- many in deciding who to admit from all -- already qualified pool of applicants. the court walked away from decades of president --cnas -- precedent in that state was made clear -- and that state was made clear. i agree with the statement from the dissent.

. >> reporter: the decision is a setback for the nation's oldest private university, harvard, and oldest public one, the university of north carolinaere accused by a group of asian american students of racial discrimination in their admissions policies. chief justice john roberts writing for the majority saying the policies unavoidably employ race in a negative manner and involve racial stereotyping, adding, a student must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual, not on the basis of race. >> he wants individually assessed applicants. he doesn't want people looked at because of the color of their skin but because of what they've done, who they are in their life. >> reporter: the institutes brought by students for fair admissions, a coalition of students and parents who oppose any consideration of race in college applications. >> if no one is standing up to speak out against the injustices faced by our community, then our well-deserved rights will never be realized. >> reporter: they were led by conservative legal activist edward bloom. >> these discriminatory admissions practices undermined the integrity of our c

the supreme court's ruling of desk against using race as a factor against culture mission, the case stemming from two lawsuits, one from -- against harvard university and the other against the university of north carolina. we will be hearing more response to t sreme court ruling on race and college admissions in

lawsuit brought not just against harvard university, but also against the university of north carolina, alleging that because both universities considered race as one of the application factors in their admissions decisions. that these 2 institutions, and by extension, other colleges and universities across the united states were violating the us constitution. today, the u. s. supreme court agreed with that ruling of with the challenge, i should say, suggesting that in the case of harvard, it was violating this her title 6 of the 1964 civil rights act. and that in the u. n. c. case, it was violating the due cause provision under the 14th amendment. and so that means that colleges and universities now have to look at other ways of building what they consider to be a goal of higher education, which is bringing in a diverse student body. rather than this ruling is, in a sense, it's pretty narrow because it's about college admissions and college recruitment does. it however, undermine affirmative action in a wider sense to well, the only reason why this decision affects the higher uh, bodies of education is because these institutions accept the federal

universities some latitude to consider race as one factor as they sought to build more diverse student bodies. writing for the majority, chief justice john roberts said admissions policies that harvard university and the university of north carolina protection clause. "the student must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual, not on the basis of race," roberts wrote. "many universities have, for too long, done just the opposite." in a scathing dissent, justice sonia sotomayor accused the court majority of ignoring history and precedent. "the court cements a superficial rule of colorblindness as a constitutional principle in an endemically segregated society, where race has always mattered and continues to matter." at the white house, president biden criticized the conservative majority. >> this is not a normal court. >> reporter: and said the nation must find a new way to achieve diversity in college admissions. >> what i propose for consideration is a new standard, where colleges take into account the adversity a student has overcome when selecting among qualified applicants. >> reporter: the opinion also exposed deep personal and ideological divisions within the court. justice ketanji brown jackson, the firs

universities some latitude to consider race as one factor as they sought to build more diverse student bodies. writing for the majority, chief justice john roberts said admission policies at harvard university and the university of north carolinae 14th amendment's equal protection clause. the student must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual, not on the basis of race, roberts wrote. many universities have for too long done just the opposite. in a scathing dissent, justice sonia sotomayor accused the court majority of ignoring history and precedent. the court cements a superficial rule of color blindness as a constitutional principle in an endemically segregated society, where race has always mattered and continues to matter. at the white house, president biden criticized the conservative majority and said the nation must find a new way to achieve diversity in college admissions. >> what i propose for consideration is a new standard where colleges take into account the adversity a student has overcome when selecting among qualified applicants. >> reporter: the opinion also exposed deep personal and ideological divisions within the court. justice ketanji brown jackson, the first black woman to serve on the

wade this summer and the justice has decided on two similar cases, one against harvard university and the other against university of north carolinahill. both cases brought by the conservative leaning students for fair admission. the group argued that the school policies discriminated against white and asian-american students. now this is what the chief justice john roberts wrote in his decision. the student must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual, not on the basis of race. many universities have for too long done just the opposite and in doing so they have concluded wrongly that the touchstone of an individual's identity is not based on skills and lessons learned, but the color of the skin. our constitutional history does not tolerate that choice. any school using race as an admitting factor will have to stop immediately. many will have to look for other ways to boost diversity in higher education and it is up to the school to implement those approximately sees. nine states have banned colleges from using race in admissions and educators say the number plaque and latino students enrolled in universities d

the systematic consideration of race-based affirmative action in college admissions. the court ruled that the programs at the university of north carolina and one at harvard university violate the equal protection clause of the constitution. the schools were accused of giving substantial preferences to black and hispanic applicants while discriminating against asian students. the vote was 6-3 in the north carolina case with all three of the liberal judges dissenting and 6-2 in the harvard ruling because justice ketanji brown jackson recused herself. chief justice john roberts wrote the majority opinion stating that both programs lack a sufficient focus and measurable objectives warranting the use of race, unavoidably employing race and lack meaningful end points. however, he also seemed to give admissions offices an opening on the issue of race writing this. nothing in this opinion should be construed as mohibiting universities from considering an applicant's discussion how race affected his or her life be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise. now, justice ketanji brown jackson a fierce rebuttal. she wrote this. with let them eat cake obliv sness today the m

this was brought against the university of north carolina and harvard university by two asian students onh case, students for fair admissions that brought the case. the biden administration said they are getting rid of these admissions would have destabilizing effect specifically with latino and black students but the court says it has permitted race-based admissions within the confines of narrow restriction. recent programs must comply with that scrutiny or they may not use race as a stereotype. in this case harvard and unc program, justice roberts writes, however well-intentioned, implement in good faith they fail to reach those criteria real. sotomayor wrote the dissent, the harvard casing university of north carolina case, the supreme court shooting down race-based admissions on a broad scale for universities to use that but looking for reaction from the white house, but in the past they said it would have destabilizing effect for black and latino students. we will see what they say to that. ashley: fascinating stuff. thank you very much for that supreme court ruling, president biden

the decision has been created. some minority students bossing jordan has more 2 of the oldest universities in the united states, harvard and the university of north carolina have used race as one of the many factors to admit potential qualified students. but a group of asian american students suit u. n. c. and harvard, claiming the practice, denied them access to an elite education in favor of lots are qualified african american and latino applicants. on thursday, the us supreme court agreed ruling 6 to 3 that using race as a factor violated the 14th amendment to the constitution. and the 1964 civil rights there were opposing groups of students, reacted to the ruling on the court steps. the man behind the student's lawsuit celebrate these obligations, compel the removal of all racial and ethnic classification boxes from undergraduate and post graduate application forms. the incoming president of harvard said the school is now reworking the way it admits new students, while still focusing on diversity. we will comply with the court's decision, but it does not change our values. the us president blasted the decision and called the supreme court, an obstacle to social progress, t

the landscape of college admissions, with thousands of students in the years to come and the universities who are trying to make diversity a priority on campus. chief f jujustice, jojohn roberts said harvard and university of north carolina's race conscious admissions programs violate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. lawsuits against the school allege the policies discriminated against white and asian american applicants. in her dissent, justice sonia wrote the decision rules back decades of precedent and momentous progress. and in a separate comment, justice brown jackson called the decision a tragedy for us all. president biden weighed in after the decision was announced. >> we cannot let this decision be a permanent setback for the country, we need to keep an open door of opportunities. we need to remember that diversity is our strength. we have to find a way forward. we need to remember that the promise of america is big enough for anyone to succeed. >> reporter: a lot of universities that have been bracing for this decision were already thinking about alternate ways to increase diversity on campus. >> we might see colleges and universities put more weight for instance on where you grew up, do your pa

the use of affirmative-action. in has decisions between these two universities, harvard college and the university of north carolina. it was on a little bit of a different number for harvard college. he has a in court justice ketanji brown jackson recusing herself. it's more than a 200-page opinion. it is a lot to go through. let me give you a little of what chief justice john roberts wrote in the majority opinion. "both programs like sufficiently focus and measurable objectives warranting the use of race, unavoidably employing grace in a negative manner, involve racial stereotyping and lacked meaningful endpoint. we have never permitted admissions programs to work that way and we will not do so today." to counter that what we heard from justice sonia sotomayor is the court submits a superficial rule of colorblindness as a constitutional principle in endemically segregated society where race has always mattered and continues to matter. the big picture, the broader question is, does this mean affirmative-action, when you look at under -- other universities, while they have to edit and revamp their admission programs because of

one involving the university of north carolina. one involving harvard college. they are challenges to those universities considerations of race in their admissions process. back in 2003, the supreme court in a case called -- said that the university of michigan could consider a race as part of its admission process. as part of its effort to have a diverse student body. that was a 5 to 4 decision by justices -- who has since retired. even in that decision at the end, justice o'connor wrote we would hope that in 25 years. consideration of race would no longer be necessary. universities would now be able to achieve this diversity through other means. it's now 20 years later. the court is a very different court than the one that we had back in 2003. a group called students referred missions brought of these challenges to you and see. arguing that unc could have a diverse student body without considering grace. against harvard, arguing that it's consideration of race discriminated against asian american students in favor of white hispanic and black students. those cases came up through the lower courts. the

two schools at the center of this decision, harvard, america's oldest private university, and the university of north carolina, the oldest public one. the 6-3 decision with the conservative majority standing together. the liberal minority united in dissent. chief justice john roberts writing for the majority, saying the two schools' admissions policies, quote, involve racial stereotyping in a way that violates the constitution. justice clarence thomas acknowledging he benefitted from affirmative action, siding with the majority, saying race-conscious practices, quote, fly in the face of our colorblind constitution. 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 s

the supreme court is hearing challenges to affirmative-action using race as a factor for university admissions in both public and private universities. two different cases, one from harvard and one from the university of north carolina is a really big deal. most observers do expect them to rule that you cannot use race as a factor in admissions. in the way it has been done for years down in higher education. it would be usually consequential at a time of massive demographic change and massive pressure on our university systems. the universities around the country, as i understand it, have already anticipated a lot of these rulings and are looking to make changes. one of the questions is, are there other ways to promote diversity including on class or location that will not just replicate the kind of old school white traditional student bodies of the past, but will enable universities to continue seeking a diverse student body. there was a great question that justice as kentucky brown jackson asked during the oral argument -- ketanji brown jackson asked during the oral argument. she said, if there are two essays applying for college, what is from somebody who says, i want to go to unc because my grandfather went ther

professor of economics and finance at the university of north carolina at chapel hill and in saint gala on switzerland, guido called c professor of macro economics at the university of south carolina. a warm welcome to wall and thanks so much for joining us today on inside story. i know. sure. let me start with you today. what are indian prime minister in around remote is motivations for calling for the a you to be given membership to the g 20 n y now as well. so this is an incredibly crucial juncture in terms of engagement with africa. and as you know, india has just as young the presidency of the g 20 g given that africa is going to have the largest population by 2050 and as the largest democracy in the world and the fastest growing economy in years g 20 presidency will play a crucial role in building a strong, sustainable relationship with for gosh, so this in my view is a critical juncture in building this relationship with india as the head of the g 20 and with the us as well as erupt in union in partnership with building a better building better for africa when you're taught to you what would this potential membership of the african union in the g 20 mean f

said adn policies at harvard university and the university of north carolina violated the 14th amendment equal protection clause. we know the ruling will have an impact on students here in california. >> reporter: you might not know that california already has a ban on affirmative action in public schools, and that was enacted in 1976 and has been part of the diaspora now. that was prop 209. but the ruling means there are changes coming to private colleges. right now schools like stanford, usc and usf have affirmative action as part of their admissions process. university of san francisco said today that efforts to recruit and retain more black students led to the enrollment of black students tripling of the school. we talked to one administrator who said the state schools saw a 40% drop in black and latino students right after they were banned from using affirmative action, and they have had to get creative with targeted outreach. >> we are trying to help people develop a pathway to our universities. that has been a lot of work. that is a lot of heavy lifting and involves personnel and funds and involves a lot of relationship building. >> reporter: she

of this nation and one that we should celebrate. i thank god almighty that america continues to work towards that concept of a more perfect union. >> julie: how do these universities such as the university of north carolina and harvard in this case now move on and continue to fulfill their diverse campus as they both want? prominent schools say their standards have a larger societal goal. one endorsed for decades by the courts to promote a robust, diverse campus for future leaders. is it safe to say that they aren't going to want to continue that mission since they've been on the mission for 19 years? how will the court ruling prevent them from continuing down that path? >> i think the question is how do you continue to create a culture where education is the goal for every single part of our community. one of the things that harvard could do to make that even better is to eliminate any legacy programs where they have preferential treatment for legacy kids. not allow the professor eva's kids to come to harvard as well. let's make sure all admissions are based on academic scores. let's look at the legacy programs. let's look at the fact that the professors' kids get to go there as well. the good news for

admissions policies at harvard university and the university of north carolina violated the 14th amendment's equal protection clause, saying in part, "the student must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual, not on the basis of race." in a scathing dissent, justice ketanji brown jackson, the first black woman on the court, wrote, "with let them eat cake obliviousness the majority pulls the rip cord and announces colorblindness for all by legal fiat." the cases were brought by conservative activist richard blum's admissions arguing the schools discriminated against white and asian applicants like calvin yang. >> it is my hope to see a renewed college admissions system that recognizes and rewards the multifaceted talents and diverse perspective that each individual can bring to the table. >> reporter: chief justice roberts wrote that universities can still consider the discussion of how race affected an applicant's life, say in an essay. a notion that justice sonia sotomayor called nothing but an attempt to put lipstick on a pig. president biden slammed the ruling. >> this is not normal. >> reporter: while republicans praised the decision as ending d

are arguing that race is the reason they were locked out of the university of north carolina and harvard university, but it's not clear they can even prove that because race is oneny factors considered in the admissions calculus. we just don't know that race was dispositive here, but more importantly, it seemed like the court didn't even care about that threshold question of whether the litigants had standing. they wanted it get to the merits. that's what worries me. this is a court that seems to be in a hurry to decide this affirmative action case, and again, it would not be beyond the pale or unexpected for this court to begin the process of dismantling affirmative action as the country prepares to celebrate the new federal holiday, juneteenth, which is meant to commemorate the freedom of african americans from enslavement. >> it's the inconsistency. the conservatives on the court don't seem to have a coherent set of ideas. on the one hand, they say precedent is important. on the other hand, they say precedent is trash. on the one hand, they say this person has standing. on the other hand, they don't. the only thing that seems consistent is there are political

the admissions programs fail each of the criteria university programs must comply with. on the other side, the liberal justices dissenting with some scathing words. justice ketanji brown jackson in the university of north carolinae writes, with let them eat cake obliviousness, the majority pulls the rip cord and announces color blindness for all by legal fiat, but deeming race irrelevant in law does not make it so in life. joining me now is nbc's allie raffa near the white house, antonia hilton on the harvard university campus, and former federal prosecutor and msnbc legal analyst, paul butler. you're hearing realtime reaction from college students at harvard. what are you hearing? >> reporter: well, students tell me they are still processing this news, that it's come like a gut punch to the majority of them, even though they have had a lot of time to prepare for this moment, since the earliest stages of this lawsuit, people say they knew it was going to make its way to the supreme court and this result was likely. it still shocked many of them, and their concern is not so much for themselves but more for the generations of students coming up behind them, students like them who come from all kinds of communitie

universities. what this means is that colleges and universities can no longer use factors of race in their submissions. harvard and the university of north carolina chapel hill were illegally discriminating based on race and violating the constitution. chief justice john roberts wrote the opinion saying, affirmative action violates the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. he writes that the value of promoting diversity does not outweigh the harm racial preferences have on other students. roberts says, every student must be treated based on experiences as an individual and not on the basis of race. this decision turns over 45 years of a court presidents. justice jackson recused herself of the case because she is a former member of harvard's board of overseers. some morn this could make bodies significantly less diverse. >> the decision today does not just effect undergraduate admissions. undergraduate admissions is the entry point for training future leaders. so this is where we begin to traiour future teachers, lawyers, doctors, et cetera. so the ripple effect will go much beyond undergraduate admissions and it is going to affect us all. >> 53% of americans believe that affirmative acti

following a challenge to the policies of harvard university, and the university of north carolina, brought by a group led by a conservative activist. nbc's laura jarret has more details on the court's major ruling >> reporter: a landmark decision from a bitterly-divided supreme court, rejecting the use of race as we know it in college admissions chief justice john roberts leading the 6-3 majority to conclude programs at harvard and north carolina eye slviolated tw that they involved racial stereotyping >> the polarizing, stigmatizing and unfair jurisprudence that allowed colleges and universities to use a student's race and ethnicity as a factor to either admit them or reject them has been overruled. >> reporter: praise there from the architect of the lawsuits. as the decision quickly began to set in on college campuses >> hadthis is a really disappointing decision for me and any student applying to college in the future. >> this has immediate impacts. >> reporter: the schools were accused of giving substantial preferences to black and hispanic applicants while discriminating against asian students. >> the score is biassed against asian-americans. >> reporter: since the

this court, the point of view that race should not be used in this way in admissions whether with respect to private universities like harvard or public ones like the university of north carolina. >> it's interesting to me because one of our previous guests, a harvard professor had said, that sandra day o'connor line in the original gruder case said it's got to end at some point, he said that was a throwaway line. now the court is reading it as a requirement of that precedent, that it's got to end at some point, and that these policies fail because these universities could not put a timeline on it. they couldn't say when it's ever their goal of diversity would be achieved. >> not only with respect to the timeline. i think the other issue is that the universities, i think the decision makes clear, were able to articulate the way in which race could be used in a manner that would not run afoul of either a legal precedent or a constitutional requirement. so yes. i think it's interesting how that 25-year marker has gone from being almost a piece of, you know, this is just sort of out there, to being one of the core considerations in this particular set of decisions, but what will

harvard university and the university of north carolina and, by extension at private and public colleges and universities across the country. in the 6-3 opinion, the court saying the use of race as oneieve diversity on college campuses and student life violates the e equal protection clause of the constitution. chief justice roberts saying race can still be considered on an individual, person by person applicant by applicant basis if it is part of the story, the experiences of the applicant. but no longer can it be used to try to diversify the student body as a whole. in dissent justice jackson. >> we turn now to managing low back and neck pain. finding opioids are no better than placebos for pain relief. dr. jennifer ashton joins us with more. tell us about this study. >> this is a basic and important concept in medicine. you always have to balance risk versus gain. this looked at, are there benefits? they found opioids no better than placebo. there was no difference in the pain relief between people given opioids versus placebo. there was no difference in their physical functioning. you heard me say it. listen, they are given all the time. so we have to distinguish between differe

the supreme court is set to rule on whether colleges universities can continue to consider race as part of their admissions process. both cases here, one against harvard and the other against university of north carolina for affair admissions which is a group formed by edward bloom. a conservative legal activist who spent years fighting to overturn affirmative action. the harvard case asserts that the schools use of affirmative action unlawfully discriminates against asian american applicants. similarly, the case against university of north carolina asserts that the school discriminates against white and asian american applicants. we're gonna take a look at a colorado case as well it's called 303 creative versus elena's. concerning weather creative professionals are obligated to accept commissions for work from same-sex couples regardless of their religious views on such unions. this suit was filed by lori smith, our graphics designer who said that colorado's public accommodations law which forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation violates her first amendment rights. smith's lawyers argue that forcing a graphic designer to create websites for same-sex unions violates her free speech rights b

the university of north carolina. roberts writing the student must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual not on the basis of race. many universities have for too long done just the opposite. justice sonia sotomayor, the first woman of color on the court, issued a fiery dissent accusing the majority of employing an unjustified exercise of power that will only serve to highlight the court's own impotence in the face of an america whose cries for equality resound. the two cases were brought by students for fair admissions led by activist edward bloom who has fought for a decade to eradicate affirmative action. the case against harvard was brought on behalf of asian students arguing they were disadvantaged because harvard prioritized other minorities and ranked them lower for personality traits. >> we should be treated on the basis of our merits. we should be treated on the basis of how hard we work, our studies, s.a.t. scores, our grades. a name blind, race blind process. >> reporter: critics say the ruling is a setback for racial and ethnic equality in education. >> i'm really most worried about the youth and the students younger th

guest: there are two separate cases, one involving the university of north carolina, the other involving harvard college. there are challenges to those universities consideration of race in their admissions processes. in a previous case, the court ruled that the university of michigan could consider race in its admissions process. that was a 5-4 decision by sandra day o'connor. in the decision at the end, justice o'connor wrote that "in 25 years we would hope that the consideration of race would no longer be necessary, because universities would be able to achieve this diversity through other means." it is 20 years later. the court is a different court been the one we had in 2003. students for fair admissions brought this challenge to unc arguing that unc could have a diverse student body without considering race, and against harvard saying its consideration of race discriminated against asian american students in favor of black, hispanic, and white students. the lowered courts ruled in favor in both cases, and the supreme court agreed to weigh in and heard oral arguments at the end of october. it seemed unlikely that -- the question is what exac

one case brought against harvard university and another against the university of north carolina.se, split was 6-3, and in harvard it was 6-2, and justice jackson recused because of her affiliation with the school. >> it says that the affirmative action violates 14th amendment. and we should state that in a broad sense, universities can still look at race, but that would only be in the sense of how they may have impacted an applicant's life, like for example writing something about it in an essay, but the applicants will not directly check a box denoting their race for the university to consider. >> to be fair, this is an area where there is still a little bit of the ambiguity and nuance which is perhaps going to have to be litigated in the future. we are covering this story from every angle. we have reporters, analysts, experts all standing by. first though, let's go to someone who was in the room for this moment in history. our supreme court lead analyst, joan biskupic and you have seen history made again today, and the reasoning of the decision, and why chief justice roberts sa

one of those is a case concerning affirmative action. the group students for fair admissions, which was founded by anti-affirmative action activist edward bloom brought a case against harvard university and the university of north carolina accusing the schools of discriminating against white and asian-american applicants. when this case was argued in front of the conservative-leaning court at the end of last year, the justices signaled an openness to ending affirmative action on college campuses. another major ruling will be on the fate of president biden's student loan forgiveness proposal. the plan would forgive up to $20,000 a year for certain borrowers and was challenged immediately by several states upon its introduction last august, as well pass two individual borrowers who claim they would be excluded from the plan. this will likely be the final challenge that the proposal faces after biden vetoed a bill earlier this month that would have overturned it. as of the affirmative action characteristic the roberts court voiced skepticism over the plan's legality when it was argued. >> brie jackson starting us off from washington, thank you. >>> youtube has removed a video from presidential candidatete f what itt calls

the question whether colleges and universities can continue to take race into consideration as a factor in admissions plans, has to do with plans on the of harvard and the university of north carolinaschools say that they want to be able to consider race in order to make sure that their campuses are diverse. they say that the campuses are often a pipeline to society and it's a better academic environment to have a diverse academic experience. on the other hand, challengers say it violates equal protection. they say it mounts to racial discrimination and it shouldn't be allowed. the supreme court in this case will consider whether to overturn decades old precedent. there's another case having to do with president biden's student loan forgiveness plan. the plan was put in place to give relief to millions of borrowers in the wake of covid. some of them would get up to $20,000 of relief, but here republican-led states said that the biden administration didn't have authority basically to erase billions of dollars of debt. they said in that case it would have to be congress that stepped in and in oral arguments the conservative justices seemed very skeptical of the biden administration's

the same plaintiff, students for fair admissions. one case was against, brought against harvard and another against the university of north carolina, and the end result here could determine whether colleges and universitiesss the country can continue to use race as a factor with admission, and this is key as it is taking on decades worth precedent. >>> and also, a ruling on the president biden student forgiveness debt plan that he gave for tens of millions of americans, and it has been stall and never gone into effect, but obviously now the supreme court will get to weigh in. there are two separate case here trying to block up to $20,000 of federal student loan forgiveness from taking effect. the people suing here claim that the department of education exceeded the authority of implementing program. >> we are also expecting a major ruling on the lgbtq rights called 303 which centers around a colorado web designer who says that her state's nondiscrimination law is a violation of her free speech, and she claims that she is unter to enter the wedding website business because she did not want to face legal consequences if she refused to work with the same-sex couple, and if the law is struck down, it could o