GEOFF BENNETT: Good evening.
I'm Geoff Bennett.
Amna Nawaz is away.
On the "NewsHour" tonight: The U.S. Supreme Court strikes down President Biden's student debt relief program and sides with a Web designer who refused service for same-sex couples.
The U.S. failed to plan for worst-case scenarios before the fall of Afghanistan.
We take a look at that and other findings in a new State Department report.
And Republican presidential candidates appear at an education event run by a group with increasing ties to far right extremists.
(BREAK) GEOFF BENNETT: Good evening, and welcome to the "NewsHour."
We are following two major decisions on the final day of the Supreme Court's term.
The justices struck down President Biden's plan to cancel more than $400 billion in student loan debt for millions of borrowers.
The court also ruled that a Colorado Web site designer can refuse to create a Web site for a same-sex couple on First Amendment grounds.
Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in the majority opinion: "Colorado seeks to force an individual to speak in ways that align with its views, but defy her conscience about a matter of major significance."
We start our coverage again tonight with "NewsHour" Supreme Court analyst Marcia Coyle.
Thank you for being with us.
MARCIA COYLE: Thanks, Geoff.
GEOFF BENNETT: Let's start with the student loan case.
MARCIA COYLE: OK. GEOFF BENNETT: The Supreme Court, voting 6-3 along ideological lines, tossed out President Biden's plan to slash the student debt of more than 40 million people on the grounds that he exceeded his power.
But Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the dissenters, noted that Congress actually authorized the forgiveness plan.
And she adds this: "In every respect, the court today exceeds its proper limited role in our nation's governance."
Break down this ruling for us.
MARCIA COYLE: OK, first, it was the chief justice who wrote the majority opinion.
He looked at what authority the secretary of education had under the HEROES Act to waive or modify student loan provisions.
He examined the meaning of waive or modify.
He looked at how the department used that authority in the past.
And he concluded that those words did not stretch far enough to encompass what the secretary did here, which he said was to create a whole new program, a program that was huge and that was costly.
And that, he said, triggered what the court has called the major questions doctrine.
If there is a federal regulation that has vast economic or political significance, then there has to be clear authorization from Congress.
And he said that was not here.
GEOFF BENNETT: In the other case, the court ruled in favor of a Colorado Web designer who said she wanted to create wedding Web sites without having to provide services for same-sex couples.
And this was a purely hypothetical claim.
She hadn't actually in fact been asked to create such a Web site.
How did the court arrive at its decision?
MARCIA COYLE: OK.
This was really interesting.
You have two very different views of what public accommodation laws, which are really anti-discrimination laws in the marketplace of public goods and services, what they do.
Justice Gorsuch, who wrote the majority opinion, looked at these laws and said, at least in the Web designer's case, that it was compelling her to speak against her religious beliefs and that the First Amendment free speech guarantees trumped public accommodation laws.
Justice Sotomayor, who wrote the dissent said, no, no, no, now wait a minute.
Public accommodation laws have always been viewpoint-neutral, and that's how they are operating here.
They're not compelling any speech.
They're compelling -- they're saying, you just can't act in a certain way to discriminate against protected categories of people.
And the law does say who is protected here.
And so you had just really a very different view of these laws.
GEOFF BENNETT: Well, you mentioned Justice Sotomayor's dissent.
I will read part of it.
She wrote this: "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."
Does this ruling fit at all within recent court precedent?
MARCIA COYLE: Well, mostly, the reliance was on older precedents, either First Amendment precedents or civil rights law precedents.
But the tricky thing here is, Justice Gorsuch said that this opinion applies to expressive speech, expressive conduct, like a Web designer, like a speechwriter, but he really doesn't define what is expressive conduct.
And that's what Justice Sotomayor said is the big hole that's been blown into public accommodation laws, that they are going to allow discrimination in many situations that in the past have not been allowed.
GEOFF BENNETT: Marcia Coyle, we are lucky to be able to draw on your vast experience and insights.
(LAUGHTER) GEOFF BENNETT: Thank you.
MARCIA COYLE: My pleasure, Geoff.
GEOFF BENNETT: Let's focus more now on the court ruling against President Biden's one-time plan to cancel up to $20,000 in federal student loan debt, a decision that affects more than 40 million borrowers.
President Biden addressed the decision speaking at the White House today.
JOE BIDEN, President of the United States: Today's decision has closed one path.
Now we're going to pursue another.
I'm never going to stop fighting for you.
We will use every tool at our disposal to get you the student debt relief you need and reach your dreams.
It's good for the economy.
It's good for the country.
And it's going to be good for you.
GEOFF BENNETT: Danielle Douglas-Gabriel covers the economics of higher education for The Washington Post.
And she joins us now.
Thank you for being with us.
DANIELLE DOUGLAS-GABRIEL, The Washington Post: Thanks for having me.
GEOFF BENNETT: President Biden said today he thought the court misinterpreted what he was trying to do with the student debt relief.
And he laid out a new path that he says will help as many Americans, but will take a little longer.
What is he aiming to do?
DANIELLE DOUGLAS-GABRIEL: So the president initiated today what's known as the negotiated rulemaking process, whereby the Education Department convenes a committee of legal experts, as well as higher education experts, to weigh in on a draft regulation that would essentially try to achieve exactly what the president did through his executive order, but through a more proven and, I guess, possibly less challengeable legal -- legal route.
The trouble is that many legal experts still suspect that, even if the negotiated rule goes through, is finalized, which would take months, and likely not come into play until next -- late next year, it will still likely face legal challenges.
And we may be starting that process all over again of ending up with another case that heads to the Supreme Court.
GEOFF BENNETT: And is there an expected timeline for this?
How long might this take?
DANIELLE DOUGLAS-GABRIEL: Well, I mean, certainly not within until probably the first quarter or so of next year, if not longer.
Typically, there is a convening of the rule - - of the negotiators.
Then they have to go through various processes of going over draft regulation from the Department of Education, putting in comments, particular changes.
Then a rule is issued, which likely will happen, if we're lucky, if they can get it done by November, then those public comment on that, which could take another couple of months.
And then if they're able to finalize it, by the spring, you could possibly see a rule by following July or so.
But all of that is contingent upon how quickly the Department of Education can kind of bring this process together.
But it's not something that could just be done with a stroke of a pen, which is what lots of lawmakers and activists were hoping to achieve through the executive order that was struck down by the Supreme Court today.
GEOFF BENNETT: We spoke today with people on both sides of this issue.
Here's reaction first from Mike Pierce, executive director of the Student Borrower Protection Center.
MIKE PIERCE, Executive Director, Student Borrower Protection Center: This is devastating for tens of millions of people that depended on President Biden's promise to cancel student debt.
There has been a long movement to get to this point, recognizing that people are struggling under the weight of unaffordable debt and the government needs to do something about it.
I don't want to sugarcoat how meaningful this loss is for working people that have student loans that were depending on this as a way out.
Today is a bad day for student loan borrowers.
GEOFF BENNETT: So, Danielle, what options are left for borrowers in the short term?
DANIELLE DOUGLAS-GABRIEL: So, alongside his announcement of a new route for this policy, the president said he's also trying to give borrowers an additional reprieve as they're slated to resume their student loan payments this October.
Borrowers will have a 12-month grace period.
If they miss payments during that time, it won't ding their credit or hurt their financial standing.
And, certainly, that would be very helpful to millions of Americans who really didn't know how to anticipate the addition or re-addition of this -- of their student loan bills, which, on average, could be as much as $300, if not more, dollars a month for many families.
GEOFF BENNETT: We also spoke with Marc Goldwein.
He's with the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.
Here's what he had to say.
MARC GOLDWEIN, Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget: We need a plan to get higher education costs under control and improve quality.
But this is simply a giveaway to college-educated Americans, mostly in the top half of the income spectrum, who already went to college and took out the loans.
It's telling them, you don't have to pay back the money because you're lucky enough to be the 13 percent of Americans that will get a $10,000 or $20,000 check from the federal government.
GEOFF BENNETT: And he also argues that, rather than addressing debt, we should focus on the cost of tuition.
Is there an appetite in Congress right now to do that?
DANIELLE DOUGLAS-GABRIEL: There is.
And you have seen legislation coming from both sides of the aisle trying to address some of the issues of affordability.
There is so much partisan rancor around the issue of financial aid at this moment that it's really difficult to see a bipartisan solution moving forward, but not impossible.
I think you're also seeing from the Department of Education more measures to address accountabilities, making sure that, if students are going to borrow all of this money for an education, that the institutions that's providing it are held accountable for the outcomes, whether they are graduating with too much debt relative to how much they're earning, and really just starting to be more transparent about that.
Is that enough to really address what many families see as the exorbitant costs of college?
Many would say no, but it's a start.
And I think it's something that this administration hopes to build on.
GEOFF BENNETT: Danielle Douglas-Gabriel covers the economics of higher education for The Washington Post.
Danielle, thank you for your time this evening.
We appreciate it.
DANIELLE DOUGLAS-GABRIEL: Of course.
GEOFF BENNETT: John Yang has more now on the court's ruling in favor of a Web designer who refuses to create Web sites for same-sex couples because of her religious beliefs.
JOHN YANG: Geoff, the justice has sided with her on a 6-3 ideological split, saying that forcing her to make Web sites for something she doesn't believe in would violate her First Amendment rights.
Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch said: "The First Amendment protects an individual's right to speak his mind, regardless of whether the government considers his speech sensible and well-intentioned, or deeply misguided and likely to cause anguish or incalculable grief."
Today, the Colorado attorney general said the decision gives businesses free rein to discriminate.
PHIL WEISER (D), Colorado Attorney General: This sweeping opinion promises to destabilize the public marketplace, enabling and encouraging all types of businesses, not just those who make Web sites, to have a First Amendment right to refuse customers because of who they are.
JOHN YANG: President Biden said the decision was disappointing.
Kate Sosin is a reporter at The 19th News, where they cover LGBTQ+ issues.
Kate, from your perspective, what's the significance of today's ruling?
KATE SOSIN, The 19th News: Today's ruling is very significant, in that LGBTQ+ people are going to wake up tomorrow in a country where their government decided that it is a protected speech, First Amendment, to turn them away from businesses because of who they are.
And that is a statement that we have not seen before.
It's that we're changing precedent here.
That said, this ruling is very specific to Lorie Smith and her case, and it does not green-light blanket discrimination against LGBTQ+ people immediately.
JOHN YANG: You're right.
It does narrow this to services that express creative content, expression, but could businesses try to frame their businesses in those terms?
KATE SOSIN: That's what a lot of LGBTQ+ legal experts and advocates are expressing concern over.
This really remains to be seen.
The way that we like to describe it as, it creates a new opening, so it signals that the Supreme Court and lower courts will now entertain this question of whether or not your religious freedom gives you the right to turn away an LGBTQ+ person because of your beliefs.
Theoretically, based on this decision alone, it shouldn't.
However, we have never had a decision where we say that your religious beliefs allow you to turn away LGBTQ+ people.
And so cracking that door open, a lot of people feel like, could be the start of an avalanche.
JOHN YANG: What's the current climate for LGBTQ+ rights?
KATE SOSIN: There are two answers to that question.
The first is the political climate, which I think a lot of us know has been really hard for LGBTQ+ people.
We have seen more than 520 anti-LGBTQ+ bills introduced into state legislatures this year.
And as presidential campaigns ramp up, we know that candidates are campaigning on anti-LGBTQ+ stances.
That said, the country itself, the electorate, is moving toward acceptance of LGBTQ+ people.
GLAAD released a study at the beginning of June that found that 91 percent of Americans who are non-LGBTQ+ support the idea that LGBTQ+ people should not be discriminated against.
So there's this huge disparity between the political climate that we're living in and the lives of everyday people.
JOHN YANG: Before the oral arguments, we talked to Lorie Smith, the Web designer who's at the center of this case.
She told us that she thought the fight for her First Amendment rights was not just for Christian conservatives, but for all artists.
LORIE SMITH, Owner and Founder, 303 Creative: And that right is guaranteed to artists like myself, but also to artists like the LGBT Web site designer and graphic designer, who should not be forced by the government to create messages opposing same-sex marriage.
That right to speak freely is guaranteed to all of us.
JOHN YANG: That said, she had a lot of support, legal support, from some Christian conservative groups.
KATE SOSIN: She did.
And it's important to note that the Alliance Defending Freedom, which is the nation's most powerful anti-LGBTQ+ legal organization, took her case.
We have seen them take a number of anti-LGBTQ+ cases to the Supreme Court and to other courts.
And this is an organization that advocates that LGBTQ+ people are similar to pedophiles.
And it also is an organization that has had past ties to Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who had five paid speaking engagements for ADF.
So the landscape here is changing for us.
What we're seeing is a mainstreaming of an organization that we used to consider an extremist organization that's been labeled a hate group by advocacy groups coming in and advocating something that we have now made the law of the land essentially.
JOHN YANG: A lot of people may be thinking that this was already settled by the Supreme Court, because, five years ago, there was a case from Colorado as well sort of dealing with some of these issues.
What was different between these two cases?
And what happened in that other case?
KATE SOSIN: Yes, that case was similar, in that you had a baker who said that his custom cakes amounted to art and he did not want to make a custom cake for a same-sex couple who wanted to get married.
The difference was that, five years ago, the Supreme Court looked at that case and said, we don't fully want to rule on this issue of religious freedom versus LGBTQ+ protections.
And instead of really engaging with that issue, they ruled very narrowly for the baker and said that the Colorado Civil Rights Division displayed animus toward him because of his religious beliefs.
So it left open the door, at least the possibility, that future lawsuits like this could come.
However, it didn't -- it didn't actually undo anti-discrimination protections in the same way.
So, the court declined to really engage with that issue until today.
JOHN YANG: Kate Sosin from The 19th News, thank you very much.
KATE SOSIN: Thank you so much.
GEOFF BENNETT: In the day's other headlines: The Supreme Court also agreed to hear a major Second Amendment case in its next term on whether domestic abusers can own firearms.
Judges will consider the constitutionality of a 30-year-old law restricting gun ownership for people with domestic violence restraining orders.
It comes after a ruling last year vastly expanded people's rights to arm themselves in public.
An unrelenting wave of haze and heat put more than half the country under outdoor advisories today.
Poor air quality from hundreds of wildfires in Canada continue to disperse, shrouding major U.S. cities like New York in a yellowish tint.
Meantime, indexes remained dangerously high in parts of California and the Deep South.
As July 4 nears, Houston's mayor urged Texans to take heat.
SYLVESTER TURNER (D), Mayor of Houston, Texas: It's important that we all take the necessary precautions.
Be mindful of not leaving anybody in your car, including pets.
And then be mindful, when we come out to celebrate the Fourth of July celebrations, that we have come -- that we come prepared.
GEOFF BENNETT: The heat has been blamed for more than 14 deaths in the U.S. And Mexico's Health Ministry reported at least 100 deaths there over the past two weeks.
Riots erupted in Paris overnight for a third straight day over the fatal police shooting of a 17-year-old earlier this week.
Demonstrators shot fireworks at police dressed in riot gear and set cars and bushes ablaze.
About 1,000 protesters have been arrested.
During an emergency meeting, French President Emmanuel Macron blamed social media for fueling the violence.
EMMANUEL MACRON, French President (through translator): We have started taking measures, in coordination with these platforms, to remove the most sensitive content.
The authorities are working with these platforms to obtain an effective response.
And I expect the platforms to act responsibly.
GEOFF BENNETT: President Macron ordered the suspension of public transportation across the country tonight, but stopped short of declaring a state of emergency.
At least 48 people died in a road crash in Kenya today.
A truck veered off the highway about 125 miles northwest of Nairobi.
It struck several vehicles, before hitting pedestrians and traders at a market.
It was one of Kenya's deadliest road accidents in recent years.
Prosecutors in Ukraine have brought their first charges against Russia for allegedly deporting young orphans.
They accuse a Russian politician and two Ukrainians of war crimes for having forcibly removed dozens of orphans between the ages of 1 and 4 from the southern city of Kherson.
Kyiv claims Moscow has illegally taken more than 19,000 Ukrainian children to Russia or Russian-held territory.
YULIIA USENKO, Ukrainian Department for the Protection of Children's Interests (through translator): We don't know how these children are, what condition they are kept or what their fate is.
They may have been illegally adopted by Russian citizens or taken to Russian institutions.
GEOFF BENNETT: The charges follow a wider investigation by the International Criminal Court in The Hague.
The U.S. flew nuclear-capable bombers to the Korean Peninsula today, in a message to the North as it tries to expand its nuclear arsenal.
The B-52 planes were joined by South Korean fighter jets.
The drills came after North Korean state TV broadcasts huge anti-American rallies over the weekend that vowed a war of revenge against the U.S. FOX News will pay a former "Tucker Carlson Tonight" producer $12 million to settle her claims that the show had a cruel and misogynistic work environment.
She had also accused the network of trying to coerce her into giving false testimony in the Dominion Voting Systems defamation lawsuit against the network.
FOX News parted ways with Tucker Carlson back in April.
Wall Street closed out the first half of the year on a high note.
The Dow Jones industrial average surged 285 points to close at 34407, the Nasdaq rose 196, and the S&P 500 added 54.
And actor Alan Arkin died Thursday at his home in Carlsbad, California.
He started his career back in 1961 on Broadway and won a Tony Award two years later.
Arkin went on to appear in more than 100 movies.
In 2007, he earned an Oscar for his role as an uninhibited, yet supportive grandfather in "Little Miss Sunshine.
: ALAN ARKIN, Actor: Where did you get the idea you were a loser?
ABIGAIL BRESLIN, Actress: Because daddy hates losers.
ALAN ARKIN: Whoa, whoa, whoa.
Back up a minute.
You know what a loser is?
A real loser is somebody that's so afraid of not winning, they don't even try.
Now, you're trying, right?
ABIGAIL BRESLIN: Yes.
ALAN ARKIN: Well, then you're not a loser.
GEOFF BENNETT: Alan Arkin was 89 years old.
Still to come on the "NewsHour": Republican presidential candidates appear at a far right education event; colleges adapt their admissions programs in the wake of the affirmative action Supreme Court ruling; and David Brooks and Jonathan Capehart weigh in on the week's political headlines.
A long-awaited after-action report on the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan has identified a number of failings that contributed to the chaos.
Ali Rogin has the story.
ALI ROGIN: Geoff, the State Department review concluded that both the Trump and Biden administrations failed to consider worst-case scenarios for what would happen when U.S. troops withdrew, the U.S. government held back on crisis preparation to avoid signaling to the Afghan government that it had lost confidence, and that the Biden administration failed to appoint a senior official to oversee all elements of crisis response, which led to confusion.
For more on this assessment, we turn to Washington Post national security reporter Michael Birnbaum.
Michael, thank you so much for joining us.
What stuck out the most to you in this report?
MICHAEL BIRNBAUM, National Security Reporter, The Washington Post: Well, it's a quite sharply critical report, taking a look at failings mostly in the State Department, but, more broadly, at both the Biden and Trump White Houses.
And what stuck out to me is really a chronicle of failures and missteps that are really on all levels, so from the highest levels, thinking about the broad consequences of the military pullout of Afghanistan, and how that was going to destabilize the country, right down to sort of lower-level things, such as the effect of the pandemic, and a COVID lockdown in summer 2021 that made it hard for diplomats to even talk to each other.
And everybody was locked down in their rooms in the embassy during a bunch of critical weeks.
ALI ROGIN: Now, as you mentioned, it was a very critical report, but it was done more than a year ago.
Why is it only being released now?
MICHAEL BIRNBAUM: Well, that has been the subject of a lot of criticism.
It's being released shortly before a holiday weekend, with absolutely no notice.
And there's been a lot of back-and-forth with House Republicans and other critics of the Biden response to the Afghanistan pullout.
Ultimately, the House Foreign Affairs Committee chair, Mike McCaul, threatened a subpoena of Blinken.
And he was pushing very hard to have this document released.
And this is a -- seems to be a response to it.
This is what has come out.
ALI ROGIN: And we should note that the report was conducted by a former ambassador, Dan Smith.
Why did the State Department select somebody who's no longer serving in the State Department?
MICHAEL BIRNBAUM: Well, Dan Smith is a senior former diplomat.
He was -- he led the State Department transition ahead of Biden coming into office.
And he's someone with a very sterling reputation.
He's a little bit independent, since he's no longer working inside the agency.
And the goal was to come up with a document.
I mean, if you look at the document, it has - - again, it's not a whitewash.
It's pretty tough in places.
It has recommendations.
So I think the goal was to come up with something that would actually help the department improve.
That is certainly what the diplomats there say was the goal.
ALI ROGIN: And, Michael, one thing that stuck out to us was, despite the fact that there was lots of warnings at the time from diplomats, NGOs, members of the military, and it was heavily reported as well at the time of the fallout of the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, but this report doesn't really go into those warnings in detail.
It does make some oblique references, including one that -- quote -- "As conditions deteriorated, some argued for more urgency in planning for a possible collapse."
Was it a surprise to you, though, that, despite how critical this report was, it didn't seem to go into the fact that there were warnings coming from numerous channels?
MICHAEL BIRNBAUM: Well, so this -- that's a good point.
I mean, this is a State Department report.
The White House and Pentagon did separate reports kind of looking at other aspects of the lead-up to the collapse of the Afghan government.
I think this was intended to be a document that looked at what the State Department could do.
It was looking at the process largely of the failure problems of issuing visas and helping the bureaucratic aspects of the evacuation.
But it did not go into deep detail about the broader strategic issues and failure to listen to warnings, of which there were, of problems in the lead-up to the fall of Kabul.
ALI ROGIN: And, Michael, as you mentioned, this report was released on a Friday afternoon before a long holiday weekend.
Do you think that was deliberate?
And, also, do you think the messaging coming out from the Biden administration is going to change at all when asked about Afghanistan, given the conclusions in this report?
MICHAEL BIRNBAUM: Well, it is hard to think this wasn't deliberate.
The White House report was released just ahead of the Easter weekend in April.
You know, reporters asked about the timing.
We didn't get a comment about whether this was deliberate.
But you can draw your own conclusions.
This is a pretty standard way to bury news that administrations of both parties don't want to be paid attention to.
And I think that the Biden administration, Tony Blinken, Secretary of State Tony Blinken, sent an e-mail to State Department employees today acknowledging problems, but saying that they have already taken steps to address a lot of them.
I don't think this is fundamentally going to change the Biden administration's accounting of what really is one of the worst marks of the administration.
They offer a robust defense, and they don't seem to be budging very much off of it.
ALI ROGIN: Michael Birnbaum with The Washington Post, thank you so much for joining us.
MICHAEL BIRNBAUM: Thanks a lot for having me.
GEOFF BENNETT: As colleges and universities digest yesterday's Supreme Court ruling that effectively ended affirmative action, schools are left to grapple with how to revamp their admission policies to ensure diversity of their campuses.
William Brangham takes a look at these implications and how some colleges say they will ensure diversity remains a top priority.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Geoff, with admissions officers no longer able to take race into account, colleges and universities will need to adopt other approaches if they want to build a diverse student body.
For some perspective, we're joined by Jeff Selingo.
He's a writer who has covered higher education for years.
He's the author most recently of "Who Gets In and Why."
Jeff, great to have you back on the "NewsHour."
JEFFREY SELINGO, Author, "Who Gets In and Why: A Year Inside College Admissions": Great to be here.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: So, the reality of this new landscape is obviously sinking in for schools.
You spent for your last book a sort of under-the-hood look with admissions officers that how they go about their jobs.
What is your sense of how they're going to all be responding to this new challenge?
JEFFREY SELINGO: Well, I think they're going to have to figure it out over the next year, especially given applications will start arriving this fall.
And one of the interesting things is that admissions is a very data-driven operation.
And so they're constantly following how they're doing on their various -- on their various priorities, so whether that's geography, whether that's race and ethnicity, whether that's men and women.
They're always looking at these priorities through the admissions season.
That starts in November through the last acceptance or last denial that they send out in March.
And they're not going to be able to track that.
So they always knew, during the process, how well they were doing at enrolling Black students, or at least accepting Black students or accepting Hispanic students.
They're not going to be able to do that as much as they used to.
So they're going to be kind of flying blind, in terms of their enrollment, until they know those enrollment numbers later in the season.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: The majority opinion written by Justice Roberts said -- implied that there were other ways that schools could try to take race into account through things like essays.
Is that how you imagine that schools are going to start to try to adapt.
JEFFREY SELINGO: I think they're going to be looking for other ways.
And he specifically said students can talk about their lived experiences in their essays.
But he also warned colleges in essentially that same opinion, don't use that as a work-around against -- around race.
So it's clear that students are going to be able to talk in different places.
And also teachers and counselors are going to be able to talk in their recommendations about students, but they're going to have to be clear.
There's going to be clear line.
And for I think, a lot of these admissions readers, it's going to be a little difficult, at least this first year around, in terms of determining, how can we use race in this in this way?
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Prior to yesterday, there were several schools in the country that, because of local laws, were not allowed to take race into consideration, California and Michigan in particular.
What has their experience been like?
And are they a way to sort of look into the future or how other schools might do this?
JEFFREY SELINGO: Oh, definitely.
And I think what the experience is in there - - and I also was at University of Washington for my book, which was also -- could not use race ended in admissions -- it was really around the recruitment process.
They had to get that funnel very big at the top in order to enroll the number of students that they wanted.
And this requires working with high schools, working with high school counselors, because there's 25,000 high schools in this country, but the reality is that, at most of these selective colleges, you might only get applications from 6,000 or 7,000 of them.
And most of the students that they want are in those schools that never apply.
So they're going to have to do a lot more outreach than they ever have before.
And for most of these schools, they didn't do that in the past.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Right.
I understand California spent a half-a-billion dollars trying to reach out to... (CROSSTALK) JEFFREY SELINGO: Right.
And, remember, and they were focused mostly on California.
So now most of these other colleges are going to have to look beyond their own states.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Justice Roberts, in his majority opinion, said that diversity on campus is a commendable goal, but not if it comes at the expense of others, was the implication.
How do the universities respond to this allegation that was made by Asian American students here that they were being discriminated against in the admissions process?
JEFFREY SELINGO: You know, we tend to think of admissions as this meritocracy that it is based on merit.
But it never has been one, and it probably never will be.
The reality is, is that nine out of 10 students who apply to these most selective colleges are denied admission.
And the students who are accepted are accepted for a variety of reasons.
We have athletes.
We have legacies, of course, that are accepted to many of these places.
We need to -- we need to have balance among gender at these places.
We need to have balance among geography.
So, sometimes, students are accepted because they're from the right state in many cases, or they might be a full-pay student, or they might be the third baseman for the baseball team.
So we shouldn't think of the meritocracy of admissions as this pure thing.
And I think that's the thing that was missing in the Supreme Court decision.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Lastly, the issue of standardized testing has been -- we know that they have been fading somewhat in what schools are requiring of students.
Does this have an impact on that?
JEFFREY SELINGO: Yes, I don't think it's coming back as a result.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Testing is done?
JEFFREY SELINGO: No, testing is done as a requirement, especially at these selective colleges, and for two reasons.
One is that they have seen, because they went test-optional during the pandemic, they have gotten a more diverse applicant pool as a result.
And so now they want to keep that diverse applicant pool.
The other thing is that all the plaintiffs in these affirmative action cases over the years, going back 20 years to the Michigan cases, have used test scores as one set -- one proof point in terms of that they were discriminated against that, students who were denied admission with a 1500 SAT and other students with a 1200.
Well, when you don't have scores from everybody, it's a lot more difficult to make that case.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Jeffrey Selingo, always good to see you.
Thank you so much.
JEFFREY SELINGO: It was great to be here.
Thank you.
GEOFF BENNETT: Over the past few years, many Republican-led states have enacted new laws rolling back the teaching of race and LGBTQ rights in classrooms and banning books on those subjects.
And, in many cases, the push for these new restrictions is being driven by one group, Moms for Liberty, which is holding its annual convention in Philadelphia this week.
Laura Barron-Lopez reports on the group and its influence.
LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Geoff, Moms for Liberty was founded just two-and-a-half years ago in Florida.
Since then, it's expanded to 45 states and claims 120,000 members, and it has become one of the most influential groups for Republican candidates and voters in the 2024 race.
Several GOP candidates made their case today.
DONALD TRUMP, Former President of the United States: Moms for Liberty is no hate group.
You're joyful warriors.
You are fierce, fierce, very fierce.
(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE) DONALD TRUMP: You're not the threat to America.
You're the best thing that's ever happened to America.
GOV.
RON DESANTIS (R-FL), Presidential Candidate: And my wife and I really believe that parents in this country should be able to send their kids to school, should be able to let them watch cartoons or just be kids without having some agenda shoved down their throat.
(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE) NIKKI HALEY (R), Presidential Candidate: You have got biological boys playing in girls sports.
This is one of the biggest women's issues of our time.
How are we supposed to get our girls comfortable with biological boys in their locker room?
You can't.
LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: To help understand more about Moms for Liberty, I'm joined by David Gilbert.
He's a reporter at VICE News who covers the group.
David, thanks so much for joining.
You have done multiple investigations into this group, which has spread very fast in a short amount of time.
Who are they?
And are they as grassroots as they claim to be?
DAVID GILBERT, VICE News: So, Moms for Liberty was founded in late 2020 by a couple of former school board members who lost their seats and decided that they wanted to continue staying in this -- in this world, I guess.
And throughout 2021 and 2022, as you say, they had explosive growth.
And on the face, it seems like they're this grassroots movement of suburban moms and their only aim is to protect students and support public education.
But you very quickly realize when you start looking into them that what they actually are is this Astroturf movement backed by senior figures within the Republican Party and right-wing conservative groups, and they have been able to leverage those connections to give themselves this national platform almost instantaneously.
And, at the same time, they have used harassment tactics in order to get what they want at a local level by harassing teachers, students, superintendents, and school board members.
LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: I want to get to those tactics, because they started as -- saying as though -- as they were anti-vaccine, anti-mask.
That was their rallying cry.
And now they're responsible for a number of the book bans that -- across the country about race and gender identity.
And you looked at the tactics that these members have used against school board officials, against teachers, and especially also when they're talking to other parents and recruiting parents.
What did you find?
DAVID GILBERT: Firstly, their tactics were to go to school board meetings and shout the loudest and harass and attack school board members, and not just in school board meetings, but also outside meetings.
They attacked them online.
And, in several cases that I found, they were able to go to those people's houses and physically and verbally attack them at their -- where they lived.
From there, they moved on to using their bigger platform, I guess, in national media to recruit much more people.
As you say, their growth rate is astonishing, really.
They have 300 different chapters now across the country.
And, because of that, they have been able to recruit people to sit on school boards.
So, during the last election cycle, they were able to get their members or the candidates that they backed onto school boards, which means that they now are in power in certain cases.
And they are able to effect policy in those school districts.
LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: And you also, in your investigations, found that some of those Moms for Liberty chapters across the country have ties to extremist groups like the Proud Boys.
Tell me what you found there.
DAVID GILBERT: Yes, so, I suppose, with the explosive growth and the fact that the chapters are not well -- they have a major base in Florida.
They have grown across the country, really, in nearly every state now.
And one of the difficulties with that fast growth is controlling, I guess, the narrative.
And so what you see is, you see some chapter leaders who have maybe previously had their connections to extremist groups, such as the Proud Boys, such as the Oath Keepers, the 3 Percenters, they continue to use those connections.
And in one case in Florida, we saw a chapter leader of Moms for Liberty organizing in Telegram groups with Proud Boy members how they were going to coordinate and attack school board meetings.
And that's -- that wasn't just a one-off case.
We found this in Tennessee and in New York, where they have very close ties to these groups, and they are working basically in coordination with each other to achieve their goals.
LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: David, the group clearly has influence over the GOP field, particularly the GOP primary race.
What impact do you think they're going to have more broadly as 2020 -- as the 2024 race develops into the general election?
DAVID GILBERT: It's really hard to say, I guess, at this point.
But what we can say is that, if you look at this weekend, every viable candidate who's looking for the GOP nomination for 2024 is in Philadelphia.
At one point.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. the Democratic -- who's seeking the Democratic nomination, was also slated to speak, until he pulled out earlier this week.
So they clearly have some sort of power and pull, and I think what it comes down to is the fact that they are engaged.
They have -- their members are active.
They are not just sitting on Facebook and clicking.
Like, they're out there.
They're in school board meetings.
They're active in their community.
And that's exactly what Trump or DeSantis or Nikki Haley or whoever wins the GOP nomination wants when it comes to voting.
They will be able to rally these people.
There is a network there already that they can plug into and get people out to vote, which is key to winning the 2024 election, I guess.
LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: David Gilbert of VICE News, thank you so much for your time.
DAVID GILBERT: No problem.
GEOFF BENNETT: To discuss the implications of the Supreme Court's major decisions this week, we turn to the analysis of Brooks and Capehart.
That's New York Times columnist David Brooks, and Jonathan Capehart, associate editor for The Washington Post.
With a welcome to you both, the Supreme Court has given us much to discuss on this Friday.
Let's start with the Supreme Court siding with a Web designer in Colorado who said that she had a First Amendment right to refuse to provide services to same-sex couples, despite a law in Colorado that forbids discrimination against gay people.
David, there are those on the right, there are religious conservatives who are hailing this as a victory for religious liberty.
And there are others who say this ruling created a constitutional right to discriminate.
How do you see it?
DAVID BROOKS: Yes, I don't have a qualified - - I'm not qualified to give it a legal opinion.
I'm not a lawyer, so I look at it, is it good or bad for society?
And so, in this case, you had the right for artistic expression against nondiscrimination, and it was a contest between those two.
And the court chose free expression.
That strikes me, just as someone who lives in American society, as doing great harm to American society.
It seems to me the idea that we do not discriminate in our businesses is just -- that's much more a serious thing to break that than to restrict someone who's really running a business, not just painting a painting, but is running a business.
And if that person who's running a business is allowed to discriminate, it seems to me it's just a poison in our society.
GEOFF BENNETT: Jonathan, using David's frame, the impact on society, what's your assessment of this ruling?
JONATHAN CAPEHART: I have to tell you, Geoff, this ruling and a bunch of other rulings from this court pains me.
And it pains me personally.
And I think David framed it perfectly.
I'm not a lawyer, also, but I will say that this decision is wrong.
It is absolutely wrong.
And it's also wrong because this Web designer, no one asked her to do what she says she feels she will be forced to do.
And so the Supreme Court just made it possible for private businesses to discriminate against people like me simply because they fear that they might have to do something that no one asked them to do?
David is absolutely right.
This decision is definitely a poison on society, also because, it's so broad, who's to say that it doesn't stop at Web designers or private businesses, that it doesn't lead to more erosion of rights for protected classes?
GEOFF BENNETT: On the matter of the Supreme Court striking down the use of affirmative action in college admissions policies, colleges certainly have a game plan.
We just heard that segment about how some colleges are emphasizing the use of college essays.
And President Biden suggested a new standard consistent with the law whereby schools could take into account out the kinds of adversity that students have overcome.
What do you make of that?
DAVID BROOKS: Yes, I think there are three things to be said about this.
One, we need to have diverse colleges and universities.
We need to have diverse -- all our institutions.
Two, I do think there was massive discrimination against Asian Americans.
And, three, the college admissions game at the elite level is rigged toward the rich.
There are so many of these schools have more families, more kids from families in the top 1 percent than the bottom 60 percent.
And so, to me, the way out, which I hope colleges will do, will say, OK, you're not allowing us to do racial preferences, but we're going to do class preferences.
And if you come from a family with less wealth, we're going to give you a preference.
And if you do that, because of the historic disparities, say, between Blacks and whites, you can increase the number of Blacks students, increase the number of Hispanic students, and you basically take down what has become a caste society, where rich parents send their rich kids to elite schools, who then marry each other and have educated kids who go to elite schools.
And that has just created this horrific class divide in our society.
So I think there is a way to do this right and get everything we want, but the universities have to be willing to not bias their whole system, these elite universities, toward the rich.
GEOFF BENNETT: I want to read some notable reaction to this Supreme Court decision.
Nikki Haley had to say this.
She says: "Picking winners and losers based on race is fundamentally wrong.
The decision will help every student, no matter their background, have a better opportunity to achieve the American dream."
And from the former first lady Michelle Obama, she had this to say.
She says: "So often, we just accept that money, power and privilege are perfectly justifiable forms of affirmative action, while kids growing up like I did are expected to compete when the ground is anything but level."
Jonathan, how do you see this?
JONATHAN CAPEHART: This is another Supreme Court decision that hits me personally.
Were it not for affirmative action, Geoff, I wouldn't be sitting in this seat.
I wouldn't be with David Brooks.
I would not have gotten the great education I got at Carleton College.
And the thing that I find most offensive about this decision is the foundation of this so-called colorblind Constitution, that affirmative action flew in the face of the framers' colorblind Constitution, which is a fallacy, which I think Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson did a superb job of showing, not just to the justices, who I'm sure know very well the history, but to the American people, outlining to them, in a great synopsis of our tortured American history when it comes to race, why something as modest as affirmative action was necessary.
And so, once again, you have got a Supreme Court, which I think, between the two decisions we're talking about right now and the next one we're going to talk about, in terms of student loan forgiveness, the American people, they're going to start looking at the Supreme Court not as judges sitting on high and being the referee, but as political actors who don't have the interests of a majority of the American people at heart.
GEOFF BENNETT: Well, on that point, the court striking down President Biden's plan to cancel student debt for roughly 40 million people, how might that play politically?
And, to Jonathan's point, how does it affect the legitimacy of the court?
DAVID BROOKS: Yes.
First, I wrote a column more or less endorsing the -- Biden deciding to give people a break on the debt.
But even at that time, I thought, there's no way this is constitutional.
There's just no way that the U.S. Constitution thinks the United States president should sign a piece of paper and be willing to spend $400 million.
I mean, the power to spend is clearly in the House, clearly in the Congress.
GEOFF BENNETT: And Democrats had that concern initially.
DAVID BROOKS: Initially.
And Joe Biden had that concern initially.
GEOFF BENNETT: Yes.
Right.
DAVID BROOKS: And so I think, A, the way it's played out, he can blame the court for not getting the loans, not himself, and he will try to apparently use the Higher Education Act to go around this the other way.
I'm not sure he can do it as ambitiously as he had, but that would be fine by me.
If he wanted to take especially students who had received Pell Grants while in education and focus all the relief on them, that would be fine by me, because the program does skew a little toward people who are going to make a lot of money.
Just one little point on all these three cases.
The tone that these justices are using against each other is -- was introduced by Scalia years ago, and it's a brutalized and often very personalizing tone they're using with each other.
And that, to me, does undermine the credibility of the court.
They really look like cage fighters at this point, and that's -- they can render their decisions, but do it in a way that feels legalistic and prudent.
GEOFF BENNETT: Jonathan, taken together -- you were about to say something.
Go ahead.
JONATHAN CAPEHART: Yes.
(LAUGHTER) JONATHAN CAPEHART: You know what?
The personal tone coming particularly from the liberal justices writing in the dissent, I am here for it 100 percent, because we're not talking about arcane policies and arcane readings of the Constitution as it applies to something that applies to a very narrow set of people.
We're talking about dissents that are thundering against a court that is going against stare decisis, that is stripping rights away from people that they have come to rely on, Roe v. Wade, 50 years, affirmative action, almost 50 years.
And Justice Thomas last year in the Dobbs decision signaled that Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell should also be overturned.
So, if Justices Soto -- Sotomayor Sotomayor and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and the other liberals on the court want to thunder against the 6-3 -- the six conservative justices, you know what, have at it, because that's the voice of a lot of -- millions of Americans who are right now, tonight, as we're speaking, fearful of what other rights are going to go by the wayside.
DAVID BROOKS: I was actually thinking of Thomas going against Jackson, but... (LAUGHTER) GEOFF BENNETT: Well, in the couple of minutes that remain, David, I want to draw you out on this column that you wrote about what the White House is calling Bidenomics, President Biden's economic vision.
And you asked the question in the column: "Why are Americans feeling so bad about an economy that's so good?
The main problem is national psychology."
Tell us more about that.
DAVID BROOKS: Yes, I mean, the misery index measures how well the economy is doing, and, usually, presidents win if the economy is doing pretty well.
And the economy is doing better now than when Reagan won, than when Obama won, than when Clinton won, when Bush won.
And yet Biden's not getting the prop -- the benefits, and partly because people are still haunted by inflation.
But, partly, we have been through a national psychological demoralization, and we have lost confidence in ourself all because of the Trump years.
And so we have become much more pessimistic.
And whether Biden can overcome that and restore people and look around the country.
A lot is going wrong, but the economy is actually going quite well.
If he can do that -- he really has to do that to win reelection.
GEOFF BENNETT: And, Jonathan, we have about 30 seconds left.
I know you have an impressive Rolodex of White House officials that you -- people you speak to frequently.
Do they think that they can counter this national malaise, this sense of malaise, the national mood?
JONATHAN CAPEHART: They're -- they're going to try.
And the fact that they're trying to do it now, more than a year out from the election, tells me that they're taking it seriously and that they actually stand a chance of breaking through to the American people, so that the good economic data can match up to the good feelings that they hope the American people will have by November of '24.
GEOFF BENNETT: Jonathan Capehart and David Brooks, our deep thanks to you both.
And be sure to tune into "Washington Week" later tonight with "NewsHour"'s Lisa Desjardins.
And tune into "PBS News Weekend" tomorrow.
That's the "NewsHour" for tonight.
I'm Geoff Bennett.
Thanks for spending part of your evening with us.
ncG1vNJzZmivp6x7sa7SZ6arn1%2BrtqWxzmihrqaVYoBxeZFpaWxloJfAbrrEsKqhp6WneqfBy6VknqiZqLylsYxqbXFwYG6Ed3yRaA%3D%3D