pro-publicly joining us this
latest report.
Thanks for making the time.
Geoff: We are shifting our focus
to the remaining major decisions
were expecting from the court,
including those that can reshape
higher education and immigration
policy.
We've got a handful of big cases
left, many see the most
significant one being the
affirmative action case which
centers on whether colleges and
universities can continue to
consider race as part of their
admissions decisions.
Remind us who brought the case
and what court arguments are the
justices weighing?
>> Well, he is not a lawyer, but
he goes out and find someone to
challenge the preference.
He hires and pays the lawyers.
He was behind the courts major
decision in striking down the
key section of the voting rights
act in 2013, and he created the
organization, students for fair
admissions, that brought the
challenge to the Harvard
admissions policy and the
university of North Carolina's
admissions policy.
So it got to the supreme court,
and the charge is that these two
colleges are discriminating
against whites, Asian Americans,
and native Americans.
Harvard in particular, the
scrimmage and against Asian
Americans.
The lower courts found against
them after really detailed
trials and looks at the policies
involved.
But they came back to the
supreme court and this time they
are asking the court to
basically throw at the key
precedents that have upheld the
use of race as a factor in a
holistic examination of each
applicant to the college.
Geoff: They're also expecting
ruling on president Biden's
student loan forgiveness
program.
92% of student loans are through
the federal government.
There was a question as to
whether the plaintiffs in this
case had legal standing.
How might that affect the
outcome?
>> This is a very serious
question.
States that have brought the
challenges, the red states led
by Republican governors, and two
individuals who brought a
separate challenge, whether they
actually have with the court
requires for standing, and that
is a concrete injury.
It really is very attenuated
here, especially with the two
individuals who brought the suit
out of Texas.
So it could kill the case if the
justices decide that they don't
have standing, and the case will
be gone.
Geoff: There's also a pair of
immigration cases that could
affect deportation decisions.
>> Right now, both sides agree,
the two states that are brought
the challenge to the department
of homeland security so-called
guidance agree that congress has
never given the department the
resources it needs to seek,
detain, and deport 11 million
undocumented immigrants in this
country.
So what is the department to do?
It came up with a guidance that
prioritizes who they really
should be going after.
Most likely serious criminals,
people with terrorist
backgrounds, perhaps also repeat
people who come in and out and
then get deported, come back
illegally and get deported
again.
But Texas and Louisiana claim
that this guidance violated the
administrative procedures act
and the department did not
follow the rules for putting out
the guidance, and that the
statute, immigration law, says
clearly that the department must
detain and deport these
undocumented immigrants.
The court has to take a look
here at the realities as well as
with the language of the statute
is, and whether Texas and
Louisiana really have an injury
here if the guidance goes into
effect.
Geoff: One of the rulings we are
waiting for focuses on this
legal theory that could limit
the ability of state courts to
review election laws passed by
us -- passed by state
legislatures.
Unpack that for us.
>> North Carolina has pressed
the theory that it supreme court
has no authority whatsoever to
look at what North Carolina does
with elections.
And that includes redistrict.
The North Carolina supreme court
said, no, this is not
constitutional, and ruled
against them.
The state came to the supreme
court to argue this here.
In the meantime, the north
Carolina supreme court switched
from being democratic led to
Republican led, and the
Republican led North Carolina
supreme court reversed the
ruling of the Democrat led
supreme court.
So the U.S. Supreme court has a
bit of a mess on its hands to
decide whether the case is moot
and should be dismissed, or
whether it should continue and
rule on the merits because this
theory may come up against them
at some point.
So we have to wait and see what
they do with it.
Geoff: Public confidence in the
court is waning and sits at
historic lows.
The court is facing fresh ethics
issues.
Why hasn't the supreme court
come up with its own ethics?
>> You will hear a variety of
reasons.
They say there are separation of
powers concerns, especially of
congress were to mandate or come
up with its own code for them.
They say there are recusal
problems.
A court of nine justices, if one
has to step aside, eight or
left, and that really heightens
the risk of deadlocked
decisions.
Doesn't seem to me that these
are insurmountable obstacles.
My don't they adopt one at least
sort of lower the temperature
for a while?
I really don't know.
I'm sure we will learn more
after the news today.
Geoff: Marcia Coyle, thanks so
much.