Geoff: 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 dollars in
student loan debt for millions
of borrowers.
The court also ruled that a
Colorado website designer can
refuse to create a website 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.
Let's start with the student
loan case, the supreme court
voting 6-3 along ideological
lines, tossed out president
Biden's plan to slash the
student debt come on the grounds
he had exceeded his power, but
justice Kagan wrote that
congress had authorized the
plan, and adds that, quote in
every respect the court exceeds
its proper role in our nations
governments.
Break down this ruling.
Marcia: The chief justice wrote
the majority opinion.
He looked at what authority
secretary of education had under
the heroes a a to waive or
modify student loan provisions.
He examined the meaning of waive
or modify and he looked at how
the department had use the
authority in the past and
concluded those words did not
stretch far enough to encompass
what the secretary did here.
What he said was to create a
whole new program, a program
that was huge and costly.
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, there
has to be clear authorization
from congress.
He said that was not here.
Geoff: In the other case, the
court ruled in favor of a
Colorado web designer who said
she wanted to create wedding
websites without having to
provide services for same-sex
couples.
This was a purely hypothetical
claim.
She had not been asked to create
such a website.
How did the court arrive at its
decision?
Marcia: This was interesting,
you had two very different views
about public accommodation laws,
which are antidiscrimination
laws in public goods and
services, what they do.
Justice Gorsuch wrote the
majority opinion, looked at the
laws and said in the web
designers case, it was
compelling her to speak against
her religious beliefs and the
first amendment, free speech
trumps it.
The other said public
accommodation laws have been
viewed ointment to on that's how
they are operating, they are not
compelling speech, they are
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.
You had a very different view of
these laws.
Geoff: You mentioned justice so
the mayor -- justice Sotomayor's
dissent, she said for the first
time the court rents a business
a constitutional right to refuse
to serve members of a protected
class.
Does this ruling fit at all with
recent court precedent?
Marcia: Mostly the reliance was
on older precedents, first
amendment precedents or civil
rights law precedents.
The tricky thing here is just as
Gorsuch said this opinion
applies to expressive speech,
expressive conduct like a web
designer or a speechwriter.
But he really doesn't define
what is expressive conduct and
that's what justice Sotomayor
your is the big hole that has
been blown into public
accommodation laws, that they
will allow discrimination in
many S suations that in the past
had not been allowed.
Geoff: Marcia, we are lucky to
be able to draw on your vast
experience and insights.
Thank you.
Marcia: My pleasure.
Geoff: Let's focus more now on
the court ruling against
president Biden's one-time plan
to cancel up to $20,000 dollars
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.
Pres. Biden: Today's decision
has closed one path.
Now we're going to pursue
another.
I'm never going to stop fighting
for you.
We'll 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.
It's going to be good for you.
Geoff: Danielle douglas-gabriel
covers the economics of higher
education for "The Washington
post," and joins me now.
Thank you for being with us.
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 he says will
help as many Americans but will
take a little longer.
What is seeming to do?
Danielle: The president
initiated today what is known as
the negotiated rulemaking
process, whereby the education
department convenes a committee
of legal experts and 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 challenge
able legal route.
Many legal aspects -- experts
still suspect that even if the
negotiated rule is finalized,
which could take months and
likely not come into play until
late next year, it will still
likely face legal challenges and
we may start the process all
over again of ending up with
another case that heads to the
supreme court.
Geoff: Is there an expected
timeline?
How long might this take?
Danielle: Certainly not until
probably the first quarter or so
of next year if not longer.
Typically there is a convening
of the negotiators and then they
have to go through various
processes of going overdraft --
over draft regulation, put in
comment, and then a rule is
issued, which will likely
happen, if we are lucky, they
can get it done by November,
then there is public comment
that could take another couple
of months.
If they are able to finalize it
by spring you could possibly see
a rule by the following July or
so.
But that is contingent upon how
quickly the department of
education can ring this process
together.
But it is not something that can
be done with the 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: We spoke today with
people on both sides of the
issue and here is reaction first
from Mike pierce, executive
director of the student borough
protection center.
Mike: 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: What options are left for
borrowers in the short term?
Danielle: Alongside his
announcement of a new route for
this policy, the president said
he's also trying to give hours
and additional reprieve that are
slated to resume payments in
October.
Borrowers will have a 12 month
grace period if they miss
payments, it will not thing
their credit or hurt financial
standing.
Certainly that would be very
helpful to millions of Americans
who really didn't know how to
anticipate the addition of their
student loan bills, which on
average could be as much as $300
if not more per month for many
families.
Geoff: We also spoke with mark
gold one with the committee for
responsible federal budget and
here's what he had to say.
Mark: 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% of Americans that will get a
$10,000 or $20,000 check from
the federal government.
Geoff: 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: There is an you've
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 is
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
accountability, making sure that
if students are going to borrow
all of this money for an
education, the institutions
providing it are held
accountable for the outcomes,
whether they are red waiting
with too much debt relative to
how much they are earning and
starting to be more transparent
about that.
Is that enough to really address
what many families are paying
for college?
Many would say no but it is a
start.
I think it's something this
administration hopes to build
on.
Geoff: Danielle, thank you for
your time this evening.