Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Supreme Court Rules in Christian Web Designer Case; Supreme Court Blocks Biden Debt Relief Plan. Aired 1-1:30p ET

Aired June 30, 2023 - 13:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[13:00:19]

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: Two major decisions from the Supreme Court, first, the court striking down the Biden student loan forgiveness program, affecting millions of Americans, a decision that could resonate on the 2024 campaign trail.

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN HOST: And limiting rights. The court rules in favor of a Christian graphic designer and against a law protecting members of the LGBTQ community. It potentially opens the door to more cases, including those dealing with same-sex marriage.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: Plus, is there a plot to assassinate under way? Ukraine says the Kremlin is planning to kill the leader of the Wagner mercenary army. It's one reason why Yevgeny Prigozhin may be in hiding, as the aftermath of his mutiny plays out.

You're following these major developing stories and many more, all coming in right here to CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

SANCHEZ: Two more landmark Supreme Court rulings dropped today, one addressing the intersection of gay rights, religious liberty and free speech, the other affecting the bank accounts of millions of Americans. That was a 6-3 ruling blocking President Biden's student loan forgiveness program.

The other also a 6-3 conservative majority, the court limiting LGBTQ protections, ruling that a wedding Web site designer who is Christian can refuse to make sites for same-sex couples based on free speech rights.

Let's go right to CNN Supreme Court reporter Ariane de Vogue and CNN chief legal analyst Laura Coates.

Ariane, let's start with you on the student loan debt question. Walk us through what the court decided today.

ARIANE DE VOGUE, CNN SUPREME COURT REPORTER: Right.

So the Supreme Court blocks the student loan forgiveness program, it was meant to provide relief to millions of borrowers up to $20,000. It was a campaign promise from Biden. He wanted to give sort of breathing room after COVID to sort of stave off delinquencies and debts. But it was immediately challenged. And, basically, the states

challenging, they said, look, President Biden does not have this kind of authority. If you're going to act in a way that is going to erase billions of dollars of debt, you have got to do it through Congress, and the majority today agreed that Congress had to act.

Here is what Chief Justice John Roberts said. He said: "The secretary asserts that the HEROES Act grants him the authority to cancel $430 billion of student loan principal. It does not."

He said: "The question here is not whether something should be done. It is who has the authority to do it," a real blow to Biden.

And Justice Elena Kagan, as she did last term, she basically accused the majority here of once again ignoring Congress, ignoring the will of Congress. Here's what she said in a pretty fierce dissent.

She said: "The court acts as though it is an arbiter of political and policy disputes, rather than of cases and controversies." The majority said they were skeptical of the so-called administrative state, of these agencies acting beyond their authority today in this case.

SANCHEZ: And, Laura, this has big implications for questions of authority. It rests on the major questions doctrine, and we could see an impact on things like Medicare.

LAURA COATES, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Think about major questions.

What they really mean is -- and, by the way, this is not found in the Constitution. This is really a judicially constructed notion of a way to get before the court an answer to questions that otherwise would not have been addressed by the Supreme Court of the United States.

Does it involve something of extraordinary,vital importance in our society or economics or policy in some way? That opens the door for a whole heck of a lot of cases to come in under that. We take a step back on what this is about. The HEROES Act came after 9/11 as a way to expand the ability of the Department of Education to try to change or alter the repayment options and plans of a student who might be going to be deployed at some point in time.

This is not about whether that HEROES Act exists or whether it ought to. In fact, Congress actually codified it permanently a few years ago. There was a national emergency in COVID-19, different from obviously what happened in 9/11. But the question before the court was, do you have the authority to then cancel?

Because Congress, were clear on these issues? They gave you everything you needed to be able to say this agency truly has this power. And that's why Medicaid and other instances come up, because the question is, has Congress spoken clearly enough such that we don't have to try to infer or intimate? Is it clear enough to know?

[13:05:04]

That's what you had the authority to do. SANCHEZ: And there's another case decided today that critics say could have enormous implications by setting precedent.

What about this ruling on free speech and LGBTQ protections?

DE VOGUE: Right, totally different case here, the Supreme Court ruling in favor of a graphic Web site designer.

She wanted to expand her business into marriages, but she did not want to create Web sites for same-sex couples. She said that that goes against her religious beliefs. Once again, we had a 6-3 court here ruling in her favor. Under the First Amendment, Neil Gorsuch basically said, Colorado in its public accommodations law, it can't force someone to create a product with a message that goes against her religious beliefs.

Here's what he said: "The First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands."

So you can imagine, again, you had the liberals in dissent. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who actually read this dissent from the bench for a long time, she really wanted to point out the implications.

She said: "Today, the court for the first time in history grants a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class." She called it a sad day. And she expressed concern that this decision, which had to do with this Web site designer, could spread to other areas, such as people who had racial objections.

And that was key. She expressed it today. She expressed it to -- or at oral arguments. And all along, this Web site designer, she had always argued free speech. She said that the government couldn't force her to make these Web sites, sell them, when they had a message for same-sex marriage that violated her religious beliefs.

SANCHEZ: And, Laura, you have spoken to both a Web site designer and her attorney. They argue that this is not about discrimination, but rather about the government compelling their speech.

COATES: Yes.

This is a really complex matter in the sense of, number one, the standing issues. Many thought this would be an issue because this particular designer had not yet actually made a Web site.

SANCHEZ: Right.

COATES: And so their questions surrounding whether this was a ripe case for this court to even look at. She wanted a clarifying order of sorts to say, look, if I enter into this particular line of business, will I have the penalty of the law coming down on me?

Normally, that's not how it operates in the court in terms of that sort of prospective harm, but it's one of the core entertained nonetheless. Think of this as a very basic way of saying, if you have a sign on your front door of a business, and it says, open, open to the public. I'm not talking about the hours you're actually keeping, but open to the public.

The question is, does that mean you have the right to exclude people, for whatever reason, that you would otherwise have to provide services for that are generally open to the public? Is it open to the public, except you and this person and this person? Is it open, except this person and that person or this religion or otherwise?

That's the parameters of what this conversation is. It's going to come down to, and they already said, what is the type of expression? What is the art, so to speak? Is it me compelling you to simply provide a benign sort of noncreative expression or compelling you to use your artistry against your own beliefs?

And they have used a whole host of examples, as you know, about the slippery slopes and how this would mean. And it became a battle of sorts of those slippery slopes, but Pandora's box may just have been opened.

SANCHEZ: And it could lead to further litigation down the road.

COATES: Of course.

SANCHEZ: And, hopefully, both of you will come back to discuss that potential future litigation with us.

COATES: Yes.

SANCHEZ: Ariana, Laura, thank you so much.

DE VOGUE: Thanks.

SCIUTTO: Jim.

This is a big court decision with big impact. Let's get some reaction out for Wisdom Cole. He's the national director of Youth and College at the NAACP.

Wisdom, thanks for taking time this afternoon.

WISDOM COLE, NATIONAL DIRECTOR, NAACP YOUTH AND COLLEGE DIVISION: Thanks so much for having me, Jim.

SCIUTTO: So, first, your reaction when you heard how the justices decided here.

COLE: Well, you know, Jim, it's a sad week for America.

Throughout this week, the Supreme Court has shown that they are not in touch with the American people, because they're failing to deliver on economic freedom. Let's be clear. This court doesn't reflect the opinions of America. And America wants to see student debt relief.

This represents an extremist minority who is determined to bring the country back to a time where we could not attend the same schools, eat at the same restaurants, or drink from the same water fountains as their white peers. It's really important in this period of time to understand that we know that student debt relief is legal.

President Biden has legal authority and can use alternative pathways to provide relief for the 40 million student loan borrowers.

SCIUTTO: OK, tell me about those alternative pathways, because that was the White House reaction to this, saying that the president is now looking at those alternative pathways.

[13:10:02]

What are they, and are they viable?

COLE: The president must use the Higher Education Act of 1965 to ensure that borrowers see relief.

The Higher Education Act was designed strategically to make sure that higher education was accessible and that any barriers impeding access can be removed. Student debt being a major barrier for young people of color, particularly black borrowers, needs to be removed, so that folks can have the opportunity to enter into this economic system.

But even in our conversations with the White House about why student debt cancellation is needed, it's really about reducing the racial wealth gap. If the administration is committed to diversity, equity and inclusion, they must use every tool in their toolkit, every legal authority to ensure that we see relief happen.

SCIUTTO: What is your response to the argument that student loan relief gives folks a break who, although it's a burden, should be able to pay back their student loans?

COLE: No, I think that is absence of understanding the inequalities that have happened in America to black people.

Black folks are starting from a weaker economic base. When they're going to college, they're told that they need to go to these places and spaces and receive these degrees to get those good-paying jobs. But when they graduate college, they still face discrimination in the workplace when it comes to hiring practices.

When we recognize some of the most educated people in America today are black women, they have a disproportionate amount of student debt that shows that it is expensive to be an educated black woman in America. And then when we talk about the interest that occurs on this debt, black folks are holding this a lot longer than our white peers.

SCIUTTO: So, to understand that better, according to the Brookings Institution, four years after graduation, the average black college graduate owes some $52,000, actually more than $52,000, compared to under $30,000 for the average white college graduate.

Why is that? And what can be done now to address it?

COLE: Yes, that happens because we have to take out more loans to be in college.

Oftentimes, young black people are entering the spaces having to work multiple jobs, having to send money home, having to sustain themselves while they're in these places and spaces, while they're working towards achieving those jobs they desire.

Oftentimes, when we think about what happens when black people graduate from college, they have to continue to work in that work force, figure out ways to pay off that student debt as well support their family. Oftentimes, we see with our white peers they get the support from their family necessary to start buying homes, starting businesses and enter into this economy.

And so, when we recognize the disproportionate impacts that happen when folks have to take out student debt, we recognize that this is a difficult situation for black America. And so what we are proposing and ensuring the president does, that if he's truly committed to closing the racial wealth gap, that he will use every legal authority to ensure that borrowers receive relief.

We cannot return back to repayment without relief.

SCIUTTO: Wisdom Cole of the NAACP, thanks so much for joining us this afternoon.

Brianna, just enormous impacts across the board.

KEILAR: Certainly.

And let's get the perspective now from the other side, the winning side in this case. Jessica Thompson is an attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation, which submitted an amicus brief in this case to the Supreme Court that opposed the president's student debt cancellation program.

Jessica, I want to talk to you about something that Justice Kagan said in her dissent. She said: "When COVID hit, two secretaries serving two different presidents decided to use their HEROES Act authority." This is the 2003 law in question here. "The first suspended loan repayments and interest accrual for all federally held student loans."

She's speaking of course, of Secretary Betsy DeVos, who served in the Trump administration. How do you draw the distinction between what DeVos did and what the Department of Education did here under President Biden?

JESSICA THOMPSON, PACIFIC LEGAL FOUNDATION: Yes, and thank you for having me.

The distinction I would draw between Secretary DeVos temporarily waiving loan repayments and the accrual of interest on those loans and what the secretary did here in a student loan cancellation is that a cancellation is a far more extreme measure.

In fact, Chief John Roberts mentioned in his opinion that the secretary's plan has modified the cited provisions only in the same sense that the French Revolution modified the status of the French nobility, and that is it has an abolished them and supplemented them with a new regime entirely.

And so instead of putting things on pause, as the student pause plan did, Secretary Cardona's plan absolutely zeroed out or would have zeroed out many students' loan balances and created a cancellation policy for many others.

[13:15:00]

KEILAR: Now, one of the questions coming out of this decision is, what else will this apply to?

Because, as noted in the majority's opinion, this could open up the door to what is referred to as -- quote -- "the administrative state" perhaps reining that in. What other government programs do you see this decision affecting, would you like to see this decision affecting?

THOMPSON: Well, I think the court's decision today is an important win for the Constitution and the democratic process and can affect many agencies' programs, especially when those agencies look into old statutes for newfound authority that has not previously been used.

And the reason I say that this is a win for Constitution...

(CROSSTALK)

KEILAR: Like what? So, like what?

THOMPSON: So, for instance, we saw with the clean air and water plan from the EPA, the court struck that down under the major questions doctrine as well.

We also saw with the eviction moratorium from the CDC, finding new powers.

KEILAR: But I'm talking about prospectively here, not about what they have done before. What else -- what other government programs would you like to see change using this decision, using this precedent that is set here?

THOMPSON: Well, I think we need to wait and see what agencies attempt to stretch their authority beyond the authority that was granted to it by Congress, and then look at those programs and the preexisting precedent for using those statutes and how the authority has been used previously.

KEILAR: Well, then Medicare? I mean, what about Medicare that is raised by the minority opinion in this? Is Medicare one of those?

THOMPSON: I -- it would depend on the change to Medicare that the agency was proposing, and whether it was a significant departure from the past policies that the agency has implemented, and whether those policies create a significant economic and political effect

(CROSSTALK)

KEILAR: Certainly, with the changing population, these are things that could change, obviously, the needs the expenses of these programs that these agencies have power over.

What about Social Security or Medicaid?

THOMPSON: Sure. Again, it comes down to those same factors. And why this decision is so important is because it really also sends a message to Congress to do its job as the people's representatives.

Whenever we think about a policy of immense political and economic significance, the people's representatives in Congress need to debate those issues and come to a compromise that's fair for most Americans and achieves those policy objectives.

It is not the role of the president or agencies to take on the legislative powers that are reserved to Congress under our Constitution. And so I'm not saying that certain policies should not be proceeded. Justice -- Chief John Roberts said in his opinion, the question here is not whether something should be done. It's who has the authority to do it.

And under our Constitution...

(CROSSTALK)

KEILAR: Can I ask you, Jessica, do you think Congress does a good job with those tasks that you just said Congress should be in charge of, rather than relying on the executive branch?

THOMPSON: We have seen a polarization in Congress, and frequently an inability to act.

But what I would blame that on is the ability to grant vague powers to the presidential administration and to allow them to exercise powers and thereby shirk any responsibility with the voting electorate.

But that is not the democratic process. And that's not the Constitution's design.

KEILAR: Yes, it is maybe not supposed to be the process. And we certainly see sometimes what Congress does challenging what is supposed to be the process here.

Jessica Thompson, we appreciate your time. Thank you so much. It's a very critical day here.

THOMPSON: Thank you for having me.

KEILAR: Boris.

SANCHEZ: Up next, much more on the fallout from today's Supreme Court decisions, including the court limiting LGBTQ protections.

CNN NEWS CENTRAL returns in a moment. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:23:22]

SANCHEZ: Let's get back to the other major Supreme Court decision handed down today on the final day of its term, the justices ruling that certain businesses can refuse to serve gay couples.

The 6-3 decision rooted in free speech grounds sided with a Christian web designer in Colorado who refuses to create Web sites for same-sex weddings because of religious objections.

We're joined now by Sarah Kate Ellis. She's the president of GLAAD, the LGBTQ advocacy group.

Sarah, thank you so much for being with us.

I'm wondering what you're hearing from your members today and what you're sharing with them about your concerns.

SARAH KATE ELLIS, PRESIDENT, GLAAD: Well, hi. Thanks for having me.

I'm hearing from my members today what I have been hearing since -- for months now, honestly, that there -- feels like there's a coordinated attack against the LGBTQ community. There's a lot of disappointment, a lot of sadness about this ruling and decision, and that the Supreme Court is now being used as a weapon against the LGBTQ community, and that this is a pattern for this court, in terms of taking rights away from marginalized communities.

SANCHEZ: Speaking specifically about this decision, what's your response to those who argue that they're blocking the government from compelling speech, that this isn't discrimination because they're not blocking creators from providing a product, but, rather, the message that surrounds that product?

What do you think?

ELLIS: So, I do -- I think this is a narrow decision and specific and to certain businesses.

[13:25:01]

But this is a -- this is part of a larger pattern, a larger pattern of erasing LGBTQ people and Justice Thomas, in his decision on Dobbs was clear that he was coming for Obergefell, which gives us marriage equality in this country.

And so, to me, even though it's narrow and it is specific in this case, it does start to chip away at LGBTQ people. And why should I and my wife not be treated equally in the eyes of the law in every business across this country? Why do certain people get certain carve- outs against our community?

And will this lead to other carve-outs? What about Jewish folks? What about people of color? Like, where does this line -- who's drawing the line, and how far does it go?

SANCHEZ: I'm also curious about an argument from Kristen Waggoner, the attorney for the Web site designer.

She said that, essentially, this is the same thing as a pro-abortion rights photographer not being forced to go photograph an anti-abortion rights rally. What do you think about that comparison, the issue that this creates more creative freedom?

ELLIS: Yes, it's a false comparison.

We're talking about human beings who are recognized under the law who are allowed to get married in this country. We're not talking about your opinion on pro- or anti-abortion. So I think that's a very -- that's an issue. We're not issues. We're actually people. And we exist in this world.

And when you can deny us service because of who we are, then you are treating us like a second-class citizen. Then we do not have full equality in this country. We need to be protected as a community. And we need to move the Equality Act forward at Congress and in the House, because it has not advanced.

And that would help protect us against people's personal opinions and personal beliefs, that that doesn't mean that we can appear in public at the same level as everyone else in this country.

SANCHEZ: And, Sarah, quickly, you said that this is part of a larger pattern of cases being brought to the Supreme Court. What do you think is going to be the focus of these groups next?

ELLIS: Well, I think -- I mean, we have seen at the state legislative session, right, since January over 500 anti-LGBTQ bills. We have never seen that kind of volume before in our lives.

About 75 of them have been made into law. Ten don't say gay bills are now the law of the land in 10 different states. We're seeing bans on books for LGBTQ people, bans on drag artists, bans on trans youth participating in sports or existing in their world.

And so I think that this is just part of that larger movement of anti- LGBTQ people. But I want to point out what's really important here, two things. One is, that's not the way Americans see. The Supreme Court is out of step with American public opinion; 91 percent of Americans want LGBTQ people to live free, happy and do not have to deal with discrimination.

So, they're completely out of step. Also, this Supreme Court is a direct reflection of an extremist president, Donald Trump. And voting matters. Elections matter. So, 2024 matters.

SANCHEZ: Sarah Kate, we thank you so much for your perspective and your time.

ELLIS: Thank you.

SANCHEZ: Jim.

SCIUTTO: So much more to dig into.

I'm joined now by Carrie Severino. She's the president of the JCN, was a law clerk for Justice Clarence Thomas. She supports the Web designer in this case.

Carrie, thanks for taking the time this afternoon.

CARRIE SEVERINO, PRESIDENT, JUDICIAL CRISIS NETWORK: Good to be here.

SCIUTTO: I want to read, if I can, from her dissent, the dissent of Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

She said the following: "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. The act of discrimination has never constituted protected expression under the First Amendment. Our Constitution contains no right to refuse service to a disfavored group."

How do you answer that argument against, in effect, using freedom of expression to allow this person to deny service?

SEVERINO: Well, this is not about denying service to a class. I respectfully disagree with Justice Sotomayor on that point, as did the majority opinion.

This is about refusing to bring a message that you disagree with and being allowed under the freedom of speech to not be forced to speak a message you disagree with.

So, Lorie Smith, much like Jack Phillips, the cake baker that has a similar type of case coming out of California, is happy to produce Web sites for same-sex couples.