Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Supreme Court Blocks Biden Student Loan Forgiveness, Limits LGBTQ Protections in Final Day of Opinions. Aired 2-2:30p ET

Aired June 30, 2023 - 14:00   ET

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

[14:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN HOST: Biden's student loan relief blocked. The Supreme Court strikes down the plan that would impact tens of millions of borrowers. A source tells CNN that the president is already planning on announcing new actions on student loans.

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: The Supreme Court also ruling that certain businesses can refuse LGBTQ customers. The conservative majority citing the Free Speech argument, while the liberal justices warned that the decision could lead to other kinds of discrimination.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: They are the members of our military who protect our national waters and conduct urgent rescue missions at a moment's notice. But a secret investigation reveals the dark history of the U.S. Coast Guard. Years of rapes, assaults, and serious misconduct allegations all ignored.

CNN has exclusive reporting about the years-long cover-up. We are following these major developing stories and many more, all coming in right here to CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

SCIUTTO: The Supreme Court wrapped up its term today with a bang, a pair of rulings that will impact Americans for years to come. One immediately affects the pocketbooks of some 40 million Americans. The court scrapped President Biden's student loan forgiveness plan, a decision with a $400 billion impact.

We are awaiting remarks from President Biden. He is expected to announce what he hopes will be new actions on student debt in response to this court decision. The other case finds the conservative majority ruling that a Christian web designer can deny services to same-sex couples based on freedom of expression. Both of those decisions, six to three.

CNN Justice Correspondent Jessica Schneider here. Jessica, let's begin on the student debt case. Made its way through the system very quickly, a challenge to an existing policy here to get to this conclusion today. Was this expected from the conservative court?

JESSICA SCHNEIDER, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: It was the Biden administration who faced severe criticism and pushback from the conservative members of this court during the argument. Their arguments were exactly what was reflected in the opinion you know, as a measure of fairness.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

SCHNEIDER: Why have some people paid back student loans, and now you're going to give a free pass to others? Also, this idea of the expanse of the HEROES Act.

SCIUTTO: Right.

SCHNEIDER: It does allow the secretary of education to act in emergency situations when it comes to student loans. But the court here saying you acted in too broad of a manner.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

SCHNEIDER: The statute never intended for this because it's a $400 billion price tag. And the court said that is just too large for you to act on your own.

SCIUTTO: And the HEROES Act, that goes back to the wake of 9/11, right?

SCHNEIDER: Yes, exactly.

SCIUTTO: So in effect, your argument was you're stretching what that was intended for to act here with student loan forgiveness.

SCHNEIDER: Yes. They're saying this was a matter for Congress, not the executive branch. So, the program has been scrubbed.

SCIUTTO: Yes, which is -- have been -- have been something we've heard a lot from this court --

SCHNEIDER: Yes.

SCIUTTO: -- no matter for Congress, not the executive branch. Let's talk about this other case here, though. This on wedding websites, in effect, giving a business the ability not to build a website for same- sex couple. The court arguing -- the conservative majority I should say, arguing that this was not about discrimination, but purely about free expression. What -- how did they make that point?

SCHNEIDER: Exactly. And it was an interesting argument that this wedding website designer brought up. She said you are violating my free speech --

SCIUTTO: Yes.

SCHNEIDER: -- by this Colorado law that says you can't discriminate against people for their sexual orientation. And she twisted that. Again, we've seen very clever legal arguments that have made big changes in the past few years. And she said it's violating my free speech. The justices seized on that and said you are correct.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

SCHNEIDER: This public accommodations law in Colorado violates your free speech. And this will have a ripple effect on public accommodations laws throughout the country.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

SCHNEIDER: And it remains to be seen what the fallout is going to be.

SCIUTTO: Because the question is -- and by the way, I had a long interview with someone from a conservative side in the last hour on this is that that's in effect used as a path to discrimination. They have called freedom of expression because that's what the -- what the dissent, for instance, from Justice Sotomayor -- (INAUDIBLE)

SCHNEIDER: Well, that's exactly what I was going to say.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

SCHNEIDER: The dissent even in the arguments as well, they said, but where does it end? You allow people to say I have a creative business. I have an expressive business. Well, first of all, what are creative businesses?

SCIUTTO: Yes.

SCHNEIDER: What are expressive? This was a website that does it pertain to chefs, does it pertain to bakers --

[14:05:04]

SCIUTTO: Yes.

SCHNEIDER: And when does it stop? Is it just about same-sex couples or -- you know, Justice Sotomayor talked about interracial couples.

SCIUTTO: Yes, a full host of things.

SCHNEIDER: So, the concern here.

SCIUTTO: OK, let's bring in CNN Legal Analyst Joey Jackson as well. Joey, what a week for the Supreme Court because these are not just theoretical cases, right, that they have a real impact on real people today. What's your response to the conservative argument here that this case about web design for same-sex couples is purely about freedom of speech and is not discrimination -- should not be seen as discrimination, at least from a constitutional standpoint?

JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes. Jim, it's hard to reconcile that approach with reality. I think that any smart lawyer and we know that the Supreme Court is composed of nine of them, can make clever arguments. Just because you can make an argument doesn't mean it can be law. We can't live in a society where you constitutionally protect discrimination. In my view, that's what this does.

Just to be clear. There are constitutional rights that everyone enjoys. But there are limits to those rights. The limits on those rights apply when you affect and impair someone else's rights. What do I mean?

SCIUTTO: Yes.

JACKSON: We're talking about First Amendment here, Jim. Fire, right? Can't yell back, can you? Because it could impair someone else.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

JACKSON: Someone could be injured in any other way. You cannot defame someone. That is state something false that impairs their reputation.

There are a number of things related to speech that are regulated every day because they now affect someone else. So, you can't regulate the issue of discrimination through speech. You're going to couch it in the form of speech and say, hey --

SCIUTTO: Yes.

JACKSON: -- I don't have to because it's your right not to say. And so, I think when we move to a place where we're allowing the constitution to protect discrimination because we make these arguments that say, oh, if you don't believe in it, you don't have to really get into that, you don't have to serve anyone. What's next? There are a lot of other things --

SCIUTTO: Yes.

JACKSON: -- that you can discriminate on in public accommodations, and that's where real it becomes highly problematic and extraordinarily disappointing.

SCIUTTO: There are, as you know, hundreds of bills, and some have already been passed and working their way through Republican- controlled state legislatures that the target, LGBT community, the transgender community here. And I wonder, as an effect of this ruling, should we expect legislature -- legislators to begin writing those laws as a free speech argument, in effect --

JACKSON: Yes.

SCIUTTO: -- knowing that that will get court protection?

JACKSON: Yes. I think even that is obviously of concern, right? The drafting of the law is knowing now you have the highest court in the land that endorses that.

But I think right beyond the courts is the everyday interaction now that we as people and going out and to society, excuse me, have to deal with. Are there going to be places that limit who they serve and how they serve and what they serve, saying, hey, you know what, it's my constitutional right?

It's a form of expression, whether I should seat you. It's a form of expression whether I should put a -- produce a website that includes you and is inclusive of you and what you're about.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

JACKSON: And so, it's troubling along so many lines. The bottom line is as I noted, and I'll end with what I started with, you know, we regulate speech. Commercial speech can't be false and misleading. So many things we regulate because your rights have to stop or -- not stop, but they have to certainly account for others.

SCIUTTO: Right.

JACKSON: And when we start doing things that impair other people's rights, we have to draw a line. This line is drawn in a way I think that's misguided. Elections have consequences.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

JACKSON: We know what the composition of the court is, and this is the result of that, Jim.

SCIUTTO: Let me ask you about the student loan forgiveness thing because the justice -- the conservative justices here basically making the point that Biden's justification for loan forgiveness taking advantage of the HEROES Act, which dates back to 9/11, was stretching the original goal and intent of that law. Do you -- from a legal standpoint, from a practical standpoint, do you buy that argument?

JACKSON: So, Jim, what you have to look at in anything is the plain text of what the law provides. The law that I read speaks to the secretary of education having the right to waive or modify. Waive or modify seems pretty plain to me in English.

you can waive something or you can modify it. Amend it, right? Waive it completely or amend it. Supreme Court says, oh, that's not what waive means. That's not what modify meant. That's in Congress's authority to do those things. You don't have the authority.

Guess what? Congress implemented the legislation giving the secretary of education the ability to do that.

SCIUTTO: Right.

JACKSON: And when the secretary does that, you said, well, you went too far. What waive doesn't really mean waive modify, doesn't really mean modify, and so I just think that the way in which they're couching it, right is really you're being an activist court. You have people who are not elected who are making decisions, and that's highly problematic and highly troubling.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

JACKSON: Yes, we have a separation of branches, Jim. We have to respect that. But we have programs that the government implements every day that we depend upon our federal agencies like this one to implement. Now, they're going to say Congress didn't grant that broad of authority. SCIUTTO: Yes.

JACKSON: If Congress wanted to circumscribe will limit what you do, don't use the words wave or modify. Find something else.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

[14:10:03]

JACKSON: So, it's troubling on so many accounts where -- I mean, it's getting to the point, Jim, I don't want to overstate it, but are we going to recognize the country that we live in based upon the rulings, right? Last year, abortion. Now you're attacking this, what's going to be next? It's just really troubling and disappointing as --

SCIUTTO: Well --

JACKSON: -- as a lawyer and as a person.

SCIUTTO: Certainly impacted. We should note that the court says it's going to take up a major gun rights case in its next term as well. Joey Jackson, always good to have you break it down. Brianna.

KEILAR: The Biden administration has been bracing for today's decision spending months prepping contingency plans on the student debt issue in particular. A short time from now, we're going to be hearing from the president about his next steps.

We have CNN's Jeremy Diamond live for us at the White House. Jeremy, what are those next steps? What options are on the table at this point?

JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Brianna, we are expected to hear directly from the president exactly what those next steps will be. But one thing is for sure, the president is also going to be touting some of the other actions that he has taken to address this broader issue of college affordability.

In a statement earlier today, the president made clear that he's also going to be talking about increasing the maximum Pell Grant, for example, forgiving loans for public service jobs and also that Income- Based Repayment Program, which is soon set to go into effect capping repayments on student loans to a maximum of five percent of a person's income.

But the president describing this student loan forgiveness program, that would have gone into effect. He said it would have been a lifeline to millions of Americans. And it's really important to state the impact that this would have had. The White House says that this could have been more than 40 million people who could have benefited from this program.

And what's very clear is that the president is also going to turn this into a political issue going after Republicans for trying to dismantle this program and taking it all the way to the Supreme Court where we got this ruling. The president in a statement saying. The hypocrisy of Republican elected officials is stunning. They had no problem with billions in pandemic-related loans to businesses, including hundreds of thousands, and in some cases, millions of dollars for their own businesses. And those loans were forgiven. But when it comes to providing relief to millions of hardworking Americans, they did everything in their power to stop it.

And that goes to the fundamental political challenge that the president now faces going forward here, which is that, you know, this could be a negative for the president. He promised to forgive the -- at least $10,000 in student debt during his 2020 campaign. He tried to do that. He was blocked by the Supreme Court. So will young voters penalize him for that?

This is the White House's response to that, which is to go on the offensive here and say, look, we tried to do what we could here. It was Republicans who took this issue to the Supreme Court and who are now a -- now a conservative majority in the Supreme Court that has blocked this problem. But certainly, the implications here are tremendous for the 2024 elections. And we'll see how this galvanizes Democratic voters going forward.

KEILAR: Yes, we sure will. Jeremy Diamond, live at the White House, thank you. Boris?

SANCHEZ: Let's talk about the implications on the broader economy with CNN Economics and Political commentator Catherine Rampell. Catherine, always great to see you. Some 26 million people applied for this program. 60 million were approved. And you say many were relying on their debt to be canceled. So, what advice do you have for these borrowers now? Where do they go from here?

CATHERINE RAMPELL, CNN ECONOMICS & POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I think that they should not assume that there is a plan B that will end up with their debt being forgiven. I know that the White House has teased a potential alternative form of relief.

We haven't heard what that is. But I think the legal foundations of this are flimsy enough that it is not a safe bet to assume that this debt is going to go away. When the payment pause lifts, which will happen in the fall, these payments will likely resume and people should take that into account in their budgets.

SANCHEZ: So, there are about 43 million student loan borrowers. The average loan is roughly $37,000. What impact do you think this is going to have on the broader economy?

RAMPELL: Well, there's some evidence that people may have already spent the payments shouldn't be -- the debt that they were expecting to be forgiven. More often, the literature seems to suggest that it was the student loan pause. That is that payment, pause, you know, independent of whether there was long-term forgiveness that had a stimulative effect on the economy and then encouraged more spending.

So on the margin, the group of student debt policies that we have had in place since 2020 and then add on top of that, this announced student debt forgiveness plan back in, I guess it was August of 2022, have probably been somewhat inflationary. You know, on the margin. Maybe not a big impact, but a little bit once these payments resume.

[14:15:00]

Again, they were set to resume no matter what, starting in the fall. And they will also resume for the people who thought that their balances had been wiped out. That will probably be modestly disinflationary.

That is, it will draw some money out of people's alternative spending opportunities, right? That maybe they're going to have to spend more money on their debt payments on their student loan payments than they would have otherwise spent on a house or a car or a vacation or other forms of consumption.

One thing that I am worried about is that you might see a wave of defaults both because you know, people are having to pay these monthly payments once again, and that's always going to be costly for people. But also because people aren't used to having to pay for these things. Because they haven't had to make these monthly payments in over three years at this point.

So, you might see some defaults above and beyond what we would normally expect because of additional financial stress. Again, maybe people may have spent the money that they should have been saving in anticipation of a potential forgiveness --

SANCHEZ: Yes.

RAMPELL: -- event that did not materialize. And there may just be some accidental defaults because people aren't used to paying and they don't realize that they have to re-enroll or perhaps enroll for the first time in auto pay plans.

SANCHEZ: You mentioned for borrowers not to anticipate a Plan B. We're set to hear from President Biden in just about an hour or so. And he's going to present potentially different options for these borrowers. What options does he actually have at his disposal now that the Supreme Court has argued that his authority doesn't extend that far?

RAMPELL: I think whatever he -- I don't know, to be candid, what he's going to announce. I have been asking for months what the plan B was going to be, what alternatives they had, and the consistent response I have been getting for months as we think we're going to win. You know, we're not making contingency plans, which obviously is not true. They've developed some kind of backup plan.

But I think whatever it is that they may announce today will probably have a less solid legal footing than even the proposal that was struck down today, right? Otherwise, that would have been their plan A. So, I think it is unlikely that whatever it is that they announced today will ultimately survive.

Now, they could expand the income-driven repayment programs, for example, that's a separate measure that Biden had announced last summer, which would have sort of the same effective consequences potentially of alleviating debt. But you know in terms of actually wiping out debt, I think that they have very few if any options.

SANCHEZ: We will be watching the president's remarks live. Catherine Rampell, thanks so much for being with us.

RAMPELL: Thank you.

SANCHEZ: Brianna

KEILAR: Liberal justices are concerned that the Supreme Court ruling that limits LGBTQ protections in the name of free speech will lead to further discrimination. We're going to speak to the president of the Human Rights Campaign about that. Next.

Also, we're going to speak to the attorney for the web designer in this case. She argued that she was not discriminating against anyone. We'll have that interview ahead.

And later, CNN exclusive reporting. Damning findings of an investigation into sexual assaults at the Coast Guard Academy kept secret by high-ranking officials for years. You're watching CNN NEWS CENTRAL. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:22:34]

KEILAR: This morning, the Supreme Court handed down a major decision rooted in First Amendment rights, but opponents say it violates the Civil Rights Act. Six justices ruled that certain businesses can refuse to serve gay people. In this case, they sided with a Christian website designer in Colorado who doesn't want to create websites for same-sex weddings due to religious objections.

Kelley Robinson is with us now. She is the president of the Human Rights Campaign. Kelley, thank you for being with us today. This argument that won over the majority was that this is not discrimination because they are not refusing to provide a product rather they are refusing to provide speech. What do you say to that?

KELLEY ROBINSON, PRESIDENT, HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN: This is absolutely discrimination. It is giving license to businesses to deny services to LGBTQ Plus people simply for being who we are. Simply for loving who we love.

Now, I also think it's true that what this decision doesn't do is provide unfettered access for federal and state governments to discriminate. It should be viewed as a very narrow decision that only applies to original custom goods and services. So -- I mean that yes, it does mean that a website designer can refuse to create a custom website for a gay couple but they cannot refuse to offer a standard design or template website to that same couple.

It does mean that a photographer could refuse to give a custom engagement session to an interfaith couple. But it does not mean that that same photographer can allow that interfaith couples to not have access to a standard package. So, we shouldn't view this as narrowly.

But bigger than that, we should take it as an indication of what the court is doing. And that is rolling back rights and providing the door opening for discrimination in this country to advance.

KEILAR: Earlier this month, the HRC declared a national state of emergency for members of the LGBTQ Plus community. Would this ruling be as worrisome to you as problematic if it were not in the midst of what we are seeing as a nationwide sort of repudiation of gay and transgender Americans?

ROBINSON: This ruling is dangerous on its own. Full stop and period. And in this broader context, we have to see it for what it is. Part of a campaign of hate and discrimination by our opposition to target LGBTQ Plus people for political points. There are organizations that are behind not only the hundreds of bad bills that we've seen in the States but also behind these court cases that their sole goal is to promote hate.

[14:25:07]

Organizations like the Alliance Defending Freedom. They are the same organization that supported criminalizing same-sex marriage. They're the same organization that was behind the Dobbs case that overturned Roe v. Wade. Let's see this for what it is. A campaign of hate that has to be stopped.

KEILAR: In his ruling, Justice Gorsuch -- in his opinion, he raise -- or he raises hypotheticals of say a Muslim movie director having to make a film with a Zionist message, a gay male website designer having to make a site for an organization that is opposed to same-sex marriage. And he says, without this protection, they could be compelled to do those things. Do you think he is correct there?

ROBINSON: I want to talk about the real-life application of what is happening. LGBTQ Plus people across this country are already experiencing record numbers of hate crimes against us. And an incredible wave of anti-LGBTQ Plus legislation meant to harm us. And discrimination that's legalized in more than half the states.

I mean, today, a same-sex couple could be kicked out of a restaurant just for being gay. A same-sex couple could be kicked out of a grocery store for holding hands. A trans person could be kicked out of a barbershop.

Discrimination is happening in this country now. And it is a real problem. I don't care what sort of rhetoric you try to wrap it in. At the end of the day, this case is legalizing discrimination that has to be addressed.

KEILAR: Thank you so much for being with us. We really, really do appreciate your time, Kelly Robinson, with the Human Rights Campaign. Boris?

SANCHEZ: Let's get to the other side of this argument now. We're joined by the attorney for the web designer at the center of the case, Kristen Waggoner. She's also the president of Alliance Defending Freedom. Kristen, thank you so much for being with us today.

KRISTEN WAGGONER, PRESIDENT, ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM: Thanks so much.

SANCHEZ: You argue that disagreement isn't discrimination. But isn't refusing a service to someone based on who they choose to marry discrimination?

WAGGONER: Well, that's not what's happening here. And I think that there is a lot of rhetoric that's going on about this case. And I would encourage all Americans to actually read the decision rather than rely on the rhetoric.

We know that this case involves someone who creates speech. It's stipulated by Colorado that she serves everyone, and that she has LGBT clients, but that there are some messages that she will not create. And yes, some of those messages have to do with same-sex marriage. But there are lots of other messages that she won't create that have nothing to do with sexuality. And this ruling protects the LGBT website designer just as much as it protects someone like Lorie.

SANCHEZ: So, you're arguing essentially, that this isn't about gay marriage specifically?

WAGGONER: It's not about gay marriage, specifically. It's about whether the government can force an American to say something that they don't believe.

SANCHEZ: So, what are the other issues that she refuses to design websites about -- other messages that she refuses to endorse on her website?

WAGGONER: Well, think of all the different websites that a website designer would be asked to create. Websites that might denigrate people. Websites that would express different political views that she disagrees with. Websites that would promote atheism or some other particular viewpoint that contradicts her fate.

SANCHEZ: So, what about the argument that there was no actual harm? The question of standing in this case. Because this was a hypothetical that was brought before the Supreme Court. Was she actually harmed? She never actually was asked to make a website for a gay couple, was she?

WAGGONER: I'm surprised that you're even asking that in the sense that she was harmed. Colorado has been the most aggressive state --

SANCHEZ: But she hadn't actually started the business.

WAGGONER: She had started the business and she wanted to go into design custom same-sex -- or custom wedding websites.

SANCHEZ: What I mean is that she wasn't penalized by the state for this. She hadn't actually experienced harm yet.

WAGGONER: She had. Her speech was chilled. She couldn't enter into the business because Colorado had consistently not just against her but like-minded individuals said that they would punish -- excessively punish those who would express his view and decline to express the view that supports same-sex marriage. Colorado's notorious. Surely you've heard of the masterpiece cake shop and know what happened to it.

SANCHEZ: I actually work in Colorado when that was happening and spoke to some of the key players in that decision. You were part of that case as well.

WAGGONER: I was.

SANCHEZ: So, it leads me to wonder, is there a campaign on behalf of folks within your organization to target the rights of LGBTQ people?

WAGGONER: There's a campaign on behalf of Alliance Defending Freedom to protect free speech for everyone. The court's decision today said that public accommodation laws will continue to apply, that they've coexisted with the First Amendment for decades, and people won't be denied access to goods and services. And we will protect the rights of free speech, including those who support same-sex marriage.

SANCHEZ: I'm curious about a perspective that was brought about in the dissent from Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Your client believes that marriage should remain between a man and a woman. There are creators out there who believe that marriage should remain between people of the same race.