Lisa: History and high stakes at the supreme court. >> Is this a rogue court? Pres. Biden: This is not a normal court. Lisa: The supreme court session closes with blockbuster rulings handing conseservatives victories on religious rights, the president's student loan forgiveness plan and affirmative action. >> We will not be judged solely by the color of our skin. >> It is a complete misnomer to suggest this is about colorblind. It is about being blind to history. Lisa: For the left, one standout win came in election law. We look at the decisions and what they mean. Next. Announcer: This is "Washington week." Corporate funding is provided by -- >> For 25 years, consumer cellular's goal has been to provide wireless service that helps people communicate and connect. We have to contract -- no contract plans and we can find one that fits you. To see more visit consumercellular.tv. Announcer: Additional funding is provided by Koo and Patricia Yuen through the Yuen foundation, committed to bridging cultural differences in our communities. Sardinha and Carl delay-magnuson, rose hirschel and Andy Shreeves, Robert and Susan Rosenbaum, the corporation for public broadcasting and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. Thank you. Lisa: Good evening and welcome to "Washington week." I'm less less. The supreme court is now on summer break. But leaving us quite a wake, a seriri of historic rulings with far-reaching consequences for race, education, and elections in America. For the second year in a row, the Roberts court overturned years of legal precedent and ruled against a widespread practice conservatives have always sought to end. This year, it was affirmative action. The justices ruled Thursday that Harvard university and the university of North Carolina's consideration of an applicant's race in college admissions is unconstitutional. Chief justice John Roberts wrote the majority's opinion saying the student must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual, not on the basis of race. Justice Sonia Sotomayor in the. [Indistinct conversation] ING opinion wrote this court stands in the way and rolls back decades of precedent and momentous progress. Reaction to the ruling was swift and along party lines. >> We cannot let this decision be the last word. Discrimination still exists in America. Today's decision does not change that. Lisa: But Republicans like south Carolina senator and Republican presidential candidate Tim Scott celebrated. >> This is the day where we understand that being judged by the content of our character, not the color of our skin, is what our constitution wants. Lisa: And there was joy and hope from those who brought and won the lawsuit. >> Today's victory transcends far beyond those of us sitting in this room today. Lisa: Buckle up. We start there. With a phenomenal panel, Eugene Daniels is politico's white house correspondent and co-author of politico playbook. Ariane de vogue is a supreme court reporter for CNN. Seung min Kim the white house reporter at the associated press and John yang my colleague on "Pbs newshour" and anchor of pbs news weekend. Ariane I want to start with you. This affirmative action seems to have sparked the most headlines. Does it have the most impact of the decisions this week? Ariane: You have to think that it does. For several reasons. First of all, it totally makes these schools now have to go back, revamp, figure out new ways to try to get diversity in their campuses, race neutral means. But there was lots of messages, too. Messages about what it means to have a diverse campus. And why the schools argued so hard for diversity, not just for the kid in the classroom but for the teachers, for the fact that the school is a pipeline to society and so the graduates G go on to society, go into the medical fields, corporate America, in different areas, really such a vitally different way to look at the America on the two sides of this issue. So it just seems so impactful. Lisa: I love that point. It does seem to be at the collision point of these political and cultural -- we've had a long time and John, you raised two quotes that you saw to me earlier, Roberts, quote, he wrote, eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it. However, justice Jackson in her dissent wrote our country has never been colorblind. Can you take us through this fault line and what you read from the justices about how do you define discrimination? John: Well, justice -- chief justice Roberts has wanted -- has been skeptical of race-based programs ever since he was a junior attorney in the Reagan white house. This is something I think he really wanted to happen. It took him a while to get the majority not only -- now that he has a majority, a supermajority. But that debate over society and race-based programs really was evident in the -- the dueling opinions from Clarence Thomas, his concurring opinion, and the two dissents from Sonya Sotomayor and brown-jackson. And especially between Jackson and Thomas, because Thomas, they both agreed that -- that affirmative action was to right the wrongs, the historical wrongs. But they have very different views of how it works. Of the effect of it. Clarence Thomas saw it as a burden. He says that it took away the accomplishment, that it tells people of color they're inferior. That it's an anchor while Jackson was saying no, it lifts you up. It lifts all of us up. And Sotomayor made note of the fact that the three women -- the three women justices of color on the court, she says were all products of affirmative action. Lisa: Seung min, this is the trump legacy. So my question is who do you think politically benefits more? Is it Republicans who have wanted there and are celebrating or is it Democrats who -- there's maybe anger in their base? Seung min: It really depends. I've been trying to think through what kind of political impact we will see as a result of this ruling in the 2024 elections. Because you are right. It is actually anger that motivates voters to turn out and go to the polls. We saw that a lot with the abortion rulings. And we will almost certainly see the continued political impact of the Dobbs decision from last year in next year's presidential election of the but affirmative action is a little bit trickier to figure out. And what I was actually looking at is what's going to be the immediate impact of this decision in other ways. I think there's been -- there's a sense that this could galvanize other legal challenges to -- for example, corporate diversity policies and -- and challenging those types of decisions and policies and -- in that arena. And I do think that this gives opponents a policy like affirmative action a sense -- a galvanizing sense to go after it, to go after those sources of diversity policies in the legal arena and legislation and in other areas as well. Lisa: Eugene, the president said this is not the last word and that was echoed by other people in the Biden administration. Ok. What -- what does that mean? Eugene: Unclear. Because there's not a lot of levers that they have to pull, right? Because this is the supreme court actually saying race -- this country, something that if we're all being honest around this table we know that is not true. The question that a lot of voters have and will continue to have for the administration is you -- what are you going to do about it? You talk to them. And you try to figure it out. They don't seem to have a good handle on what they're able to do. Something this administration does do quite often is kind of send out fact sheets to lots of them to colleges and universities of whomever to say these are the things you can do to kind of get around this law. Or get around this ruling. For example, I went -- I was a high school student in Texas, and every student in the top 10% could get into the U.T. System. Right? And so that means that if you went to a school of all black students, 10% of that -- that student body went straight -- could go to U.T., right? That's the best -- one of the best schools in that state. That's something that they could try to use to get around that. But they have yet to really signal what's the next step here. Lisa: And that linebacker challenged. Eugene: Exactly. Lisa: And the next challenges that are going to come here are race-neutral programs. Can you have a race-neutral program? Is that really hiding the ball? We've already seen some challenges touching on that in the lower courts. And be sure, those issues are going to come back to the court. So it's not over that way. And the schools meanwhile are sitting and waiting to figure out what to do. My daughter graduated recently. Her college sent her the day the decision came down and said we're looking at this. Give it a few months. We're looking at what do we do, what can we do? >> College officials are trying to figure out what they can and can't do even in recruiting and going out and talking to students. Because one way Berkeley has gotten around this, they had a balance to the initiative that ended race -- racial preferences in both universities and public hiring. Is that they have expanded the funnel as they say. They're looking at -- in different areas. And the other thin that a lot of college officials are girding for is a challenge based on race. Based son self, rather. -- Based on sex, rather. The college admissions are predominantly women and the campus is more even. Lisa: And could this have a wider impact on say businesses? Anan let me start with a ridiculous premise to see what you guys say. Let's say that Y Y are a member of a political party whose presidential candidate says his vice-presidential nominee will be a black woman. Is that the kind of thing that could -- would Amy klobuchar be able to sue in this situation? Where do you all think, court reporters? Does -- let me -- businesses. How far do we think this could go? >> Are you looking at challenges like -- Lisa: Yeah. Diversity programs in businesses, for example, internships at law firms. Those kinds of things. >> Certainly the seed has been planted here. And that's -- not only -- we talked about the fact that businesses are going to be affected by this decision, right? They're going to be affected because they have may suffer from diversity. If it's not coming through the pipeline. But yeah. We're going to see a lot of other different kinds of challenges. Emphasis sort of the beginning -- >> Because it's a signaling, right? To kind of everyone. That -- one of the supreme -- once the supreme court is open to these kind of things and willing to go out on a limb and do something that some Americans don't agree with. But it's also -- it shows that they -- the American people as they try to -- we have this conversation about race. The backlash has been swift. And that means that not just the political or legal aspect of our country, the cultural aspects of our country are going to be taken all under this. And like you said, it is the very beginning of it. Lisa: And plus the fact Roberts in a footnote said oh, this doesn't apply to military service schools. So wait, what? And you saw some of the dissenters say, well, wait a minute. Why -- what is -- your rationale there? He didn't say much. He said that they didn't bring this. They weren't a part of this challenge. This won't apply. But the Biden administration, when they went in and argued this, their entire oral argument for a bit of time was all on the military. Now, they were looking at how important it was in the military and it's got to be as important for the rest of the country. But the conservatives on the court didn't buy into that. They just -- they just -- you know, looked at the military itself. So that would be interesting. Lisa: Another big pbs question and I'm curious, this is -- has been a -- race has been a fault line in this country forever especially now in these past few elections. What -- what do you think does this do for divide over race? And obviously -- what are you thinking about? >> It's certainly intensifies the focus on the issue of race. Just having this blockbuster ruling out there. And just all of the implications that it has, not just in college admissions but in politics and in other policies. I think it's certainly keeps the issue at the forefront for a really long time. Now, I wanted to go back to what the earlier argument that we were making just kind of about what president Biden and his administration can do in terms of channeling that anger and just trying to turn it into an electoral plus. He's actually doing one thing that he conceivably could do which is to embrace proposals to change the court. And to reform the court. Because that is -- if you're looking at kind of the reaction from democratic lawmakers, from activists, and especially -- not just on this but on the student loan issue, student loan issue which I know we'll talk about later, they are taking their anger out on the supreme court. A supreme court that many of them feel is not legitimate because of the way that particularly one of the justices got on the court because -- because Mitch America Connell holding that seat open for more than a year. And in theory, president Biden could say, well, you know, he did say this was not a normal court. And that he strongly disagreed with the rulings that came out today. But he is still resistant to, for example, you know, embracing term limits for justices or expanding the court. Like so many of his base want to do. We have asked the white house over and over in the last couple of days if this changes the president's view at all of the court so-called court reform changes. And it really doesn't. He kind of punted it to a commission earlier in his presidency. And that's where it will remain. >> But he knows, too. Don't forget how many years he spent on the senate jewish committee. Judiciary committee. He saw enough nomination hearings that if anybody else at the white house and they expanded the number of justices on the court, that's -- >> That's a guard rail. >> He's done it for a lot of years. He knows that that -- >> And -- Lisa: We have so many other decisions to talk about and I want to talk about the student loan decision and let's look at quite a bit more of the other decisions. I want to list them for our viewers so they can understand. Gay rights. The court ruled that some businesses can reduce to work for same sex couples and potentially other groups of people. Student loans as you mentioned, the court blocked president Biden's loan forgiveness plan. Election law. Earlier this week, the court ruled against the controversial Independence day legislature theory, rejecting a republican-led attempt to have more power over federal elections. And the court agreed that Alabama and Louisiana can add at least one more minority district. So the question here in all of this is as -- Ariane you thought affirmative action was the most impactful case. Does anyone think student loans might be the most impactful case? >> Doctors the most direct -- it is the most direct challenge to president Biden himself. We're taking a particular interest in it. There are so many implications for him on a policy level and politically. Remember the timing that they rolled out this -- they rolled out the student loan relief plan. It was a couple of months before the midterms. It was certainly a way to galvanize young voters who have been a little bit more lackadaisical on president Biden than perhaps other DEM graphics in the democratic party. And I recall that program came out around the same -- or that initiative came around the same time that this administration announced it was forgiving marine -- marijuana penalties for many offenders. And that was really seen as a way to get young voters excited. And I have to tell you I do a lot of voter interinterviewsws for A.P. Polls we have and when I talk to voters about name something that Biden has done that you really like. It's not the infrastructure law. >> Surprise. >> It's not the inflation reduction act. It is he is going to forgive my student loan. This matters so much to voters which is why they have to keep showing like they did today that they're continuing to fight. They're finding other ways to at least make the burden of payments a little bit easier. That they're still going to keep on fighting legally for full relief like today. But again, with the makeup of this court, that is going to be a very unlikely option. >> And voters of color also. Because voters of color black and brown phots they are disproportionately impacted by high student loan payments and the need to take out more student loans when they're going to college. And so that is something they have to deal with. You talk to Democrats across the country they are a little bit worried about the lukewarmness not just from young voters but from voters of color. Because when you talk to them, the voters say, what have you done for me lately, right? They -- you know, the white house has talked about all of these things they've done over 2 1/2 years. But voters want -- what have you done for me now? And politically, this is going to be something that despite -- this campaign is going to have to deal with head on. And I was I I the briefing room today when secretary Cardona said we're fighting, we're fighting, we're fighting like 800 times. >> But he said send your payment in. >> Send your payment. You owe us money. And like that -- that doesn't really sell that well. And so as they move to this kind of regulatory process, that's going to take a long time, to get to the end result they want, and the supreme court may knock that down, too. So I -- I was just walking in here talking to and -- and they're like cautiously optimistic. They're worried about the timing. But they say at the end of the day, it is good to see president Biden doing something. They are always a little worried that -- will sit back and -- exactly. Lisa: Another mammoth ruling that we had of course is on same sex marriage or at least that's what the technicalities of the ruling are about. This idea in a Colorado case that a woman with a graphic design firm does not have to design graphics for same sex weddings. The court ruled out of first amendment free speech clause. John, I'm curious, do we know how wide this ruling could be? Could this affect -- is this particular to just same sex marriage, is it much larger than that, do we know? John: It could go wider. And even in the oral arguments, they were asking about where do you draw the line? Coming up with hypotheticals. Asking about a black Santa at a mall. Or someone who believes that the bible teaches you that races shouldn't be mixed. What happens if a mixed race couple comes in? But the other thing that some lgbtq+ advocates told me this afternoon is that it's so narrow. It's -- the -- it has to be something as a creative or expression that they think -- they think they may be ok. But I wonder if businesses aren't going to try to redefine themselves. Like -- can a chef say that cooking a meal? Expressing myself. This is me. That's -- >> That's exactly what Elena Kagan brought up in organize amounts. -- In oral arguments. The baker believes he is an artist. The jewelry maker. Is that an artist? What about the limo driver? And Elena kegan -- Kagan pressing them saying where do you draw the line with this opinion? So they may say it's narrow. Anan they did. All day long. But there's a way where you could see a lot more challenges. A lot more people trying to sort of define what they did or do on the basis of speech. And that could open up a box. >> The other point about this decision is something that justice Sonya Sotomayor said in her dissent is this is the first time the supreme court has said that a business has a right not to serve -- a protected class. >> The other interesting thing about this. Justice Neil Gorsuch three years ago he was a hero to lgbtq rights. He wrote this opinion, and he joined the liberals, and it was an opinion that bolstered the rights of workers. And everybody was surprised. So today, he becomes the villain. In his opinion, though, you don't see a lot of language about the lgbtq community. He was the entire thing on speech. He said this is just about speech. And that's where you -- again, see the divide on this court. Because that is not how the other side sees it. Lisa: Moving on our buffet of history that we've been served up by the supreme court this week, I want to talk about congressional maps. And first, the state legislatures, the republican-led will not be able to sort of have increased power over election law and also Alabama, Louisiana, could see changes, likely will see changes in their maps. You and I were texting about this. My sources, they were into these cases. Why did this matter? Seung min: Well, it matters first of all, that it was -- just interesting because it was surprising. It kind of went against what you expected of conservative majority of the supreme court to do. But it's really fascinating in terms of the 2024 elections. You're looking at the maps in Alabama and Louisiana. So Louisiana, there are circumstances congressional districts, five are majority white. Even though the population of Louisiana I believe is one third African-American. A similar breakdown in Alabama where you have seven congressional districts. A quarter of the population is African-American. But yet six are majority white. So the supreme court tells them, no, you have to redraw the maps to make it more fair. In theory, this could add one more majority black district. We know black voters are very pro-democratic, very -- lean more toward the democratic party. So normally, like not -- not usually interested -- this narrow majority and Kevin Mccarthy's house where he controls just the five-seat majority. Every seat is going to matter. So ific pick up a seat in Alabama or Louisiana where Democrats were not expecting, this could be a very, very interesting -- Lisa: It could be forever seats, too. 2024. Eugene. Somebody was talking earlier about the Biden administration, president Biden not tackling reform to the court. But 2024, supreme court, itself, how much do you think an issue that could be -- how much is the Biden white house going to try and sell the idea that we have got to keep -- keep ready to replace justices? Eugene: Yeah. It's going to be central, right? Because to them, and they did it in 2022 they say give us senators who will let us get around the filibuster. Give us more -- give us the house so we can do what we promised. But voters are getting sick of that. Right? Voters are like we went to the polls. We gave you the house -- senate and house and they don't care about arcane rules of the senate. How things work in the house. They want to see results. And so this administration and this campaign will have to figure out how to say to voters, this is actually what we're going to do. We promised it. And this -- that aspect that you could have these congressional districts where they could have that, getting voters to the polls based off of abortion. Based off of student loans. Based off of all these things this administration has been saying they want to do and is very popular with the American people, Democrats aren't always very good at that. Getting people -- people angry it seems they are changing that up. And there's an opportunity for them but they have to do it right. Lisa: I am trying to fit a lot into a very few pages left. But I want to in our last minutes, briefly say somehow consequential do you think this supreme court term was, John? John: They have redefined and reshaped the contours of society in really big ways. I mean, not just the abortion ruling, the affirmative action, there are just -- so many places they have made such a huge impact on people. >> Second amendment. John: Yes. Exactly. >> Religious liberty. Another second amendment case. The interesting thing of having covered so many nomination hearings when Donald Trump really moved to change the face of the court and a lot of people weren't paying a ton of attention during these nomination hearings, well, guess what? Now you're really seeing that this is Donald Trump's most lasting legacy. Eugene: Big because they're also chipping away at the administrative state, right? They are doing things where the executive actions don't hold as much teeth. And so how do white houses in the future deal with that? Lisa: Last word to you. >> And just so many -- like tangible, practical impacts. You have college admissions offices rushing to revise their procedures. Or figure out the impact. But yet all the political consequences of all these rulings really interesting to watch for all of us. Lisa: Among the consequences, I suspect is exhaustion for supreme court reporters. We are very grateful to both of you and for your time and we have to leave it there for now. Thank you to everyone on the panel for joining us. I hope you all are having some time off soon. I know some of you are. And thank you to all of you at home for joining us as well. Don't forget to watch my colleague John yang on pbs news weekend on Saturday. For a look at the serious global health risks posed by increasing interaction between humans and bats. Have a wonderful fourth of July weekend, everyone. I'm Lisa Desjardins. Good night from Washington. Announcer: Corporate funding for "Washington week" is provided by -- >> For 25 years, consumer cellular has been offering no contract wireless plans designed to help people do more of what they like. Our u.s.-based customer service team can help find a plan that fits you. To learn more, visit consumercellular.tv. Announcer: Additional funding is provided by Koo and Patricia Yuen through the Yuen foundation, committed to bridging cultural differences in our communities, Sandra -- Sandra and Carl delay-magnuson. Rose hirschel and Andy Shreeves, Robert and Susan Rosenbaum, the corporation for public broadcasting and by contributions to our pbs station from viewers like you. Thank you. [Captioning performed by the. National captioning institute,. Which is responsible for its. Caption content and accuracy.]
