Summary of the day
Here’s a quick recap of today’s developments:
The US supreme court dealt a major blow to LGBTQ+ rights, ruling that a Colorado civil rights law which compels businesses and organizations to treat same-sex couples equally is in violation of the right to free speech. The decision, reached by a six to three vote of the conservative supermajority, could open the door for businesses to refuse service to some couples based on their sexuality – but could also have the same effect on willingness of service based on a customer’s race or religion, gender or disability. The ruling prompted an excoriating dissent from the three liberal justices.
Joe Biden expressed his fears that the supreme court’s conservatives may fuel discrimination against gay, lesbian and transgender Americans nationwide by striking down a Colorado law prohibiting businesses from turning away LGBTQ+ people. Biden vowed in a statement that his administration “will also work with states across the country to fight back against attempts to roll back civil rights protections that could follow this ruling.”
Vice-president Kamala Harris said the court’s ruling against the Colorado law “threatens future progress”. The court’s decision “departs from decades of jurisprudence by creating an exception to protections against discrimination in public accommodations”, she said in a statement.
The supreme court also ruled against the Biden administration’s $430bn student debt forgiveness plan in a blow to up to 40 million borrowers in the US. In a 6-3 decision, the conservative-leaning supermajority of justices ruled that the 2003 Heroes Act does not authorize Biden’s debt forgiveness plan. Under Joe Biden’s loan forgiveness plan, announced last August, $20,000 per person of federal student debt would have been forgiven for borrowers who were Pell grant recipients and up to $10,000 of debt would have been forgiven for other borrowers.
Joe Biden vowed the “fight was not over” after the court ruled against his landmark student debt forgiveness plan. “I think the court misinterpreted the constitution,” the president said, announcing his intention to pivot to another law to find another path forward. Biden promised to now turn to the Higher Education Act of 1965 to restore student debt relief. He also plans to enact a 12-month repayment program that would help people with student debt avoid defaulting on their loans if they couldn’t pay and avoid years of bad credit ratings.
The education secretary, Miguel Cardona, said he “strongly disagreed” with the court’s decision, adding that the court had “ruled against more than 40 million working families”. “We’re talking about low and middle income families recovering from the worst pandemic in a century,” Cardona said at a White House briefing.
The supreme court turned away a case challenging Mississippi’s rules around voting rights for people with felony convictions, leaving intact a policy implemented more than a century ago with the explicit goal of preventing Black people from voting. Those convicted of any one of 23 specific felonies in Mississippi permanently lose the right to vote.
The supreme court agreed to next term take up a case that could give the conservatives a chance to further erode gun control laws. The court will consider whether a federal law that takes guns away from people who are under a domestic violence restraining order is constitutional.
Indiana’s highest court has allowed its near-total abortion ban to go into effect, a year after the supreme court’s ruling overturning Roe v Wade. Indiana was the first state in the nation to pass an abortion ban after the end of Roe v Wade, but its supreme court blocked the measure passed by the Republican-dominated legislature later in 2022.
Much of North Carolina’s 12-week abortion ban will take effect on Saturday, after a federal judge temporarily blocked just one provision included in the law. The move deals a blow to one of the last bastions of abortion access in the south.
The state department released report critical of its handling of the chaotic US withdrawal from Afghanistan. America’s diplomatic arm “failed to establish a broader task force as the situation in Afghanistan deteriorated”, and “it was unclear who in the Department had the lead,” the report determined.
Prosecutors said they have turned over more than 80,000 pages of materials to congressman George Santos’s lawyers in the federal fraud and money laundering case against him. Santos pleaded not guilty last month to charges that he duped donors, stole from his campaign, collected fraudulent unemployment benefits and lied to Congress about being a millionaire. The New York Republican, known for fabricating key parts his life story, is free on bond, awaiting trial.
Much of North Carolina’s 12-week abortion ban will take effect tomorrow, after a federal judge temporarily blocked just one provision included in the law.
US district court judge Catherine Eagles issued a narrow temporary restraining order putting on hold a requirement for doctors to document the location of a pregnancy when prescribing a medical abortion. The bulk of the law will be allowed to take effect on 1 July.
In May, the state’s Republican-controlled general assembly successfully overrode the Democratic governor’s veto of the 12-week abortion ban. The move dealt a blow to one of the last bastions of abortion access in the south, which has been significantly curtailed after the supreme court overturned Roe v Wade last year.
Updated
In his speech at the White House, Joe Biden said he would use the Higher Education Act of 1965 to allow the education department to release and waive loans.
The education department filed a notice to begin the regulatory process of using the 1965 Act to cancel student debt, which does not require relying on a national emergency.
Politico’s Michael Stratford writes that the regulatory notice was only finalized by the department last night.
👀 The regulatory notice for Biden's Higher Ed Act fallback plan for student debt relief was finalized by Ed Dept last night per the PDF metadata. pic.twitter.com/AZxsHa8hL7
— Michael Stratford (@mstratford) June 30, 2023
The New Republic’s Grace Segers writes that the Biden administration appears to have been more prepared for the court’s ruling than during the Dobbs ruling last year.
The Biden administration appears to be more prepared for this ruling in contrast to their immediate reaction to the Dobbs decision, which despite also being expected, almost seemed to catch them flat-footed https://t.co/W9Ybq4gyaA
— Grace Segers (@Grace_Segers) June 30, 2023
Updated
Speaking from the White House briefing room, Miguel Cardona, the secretary of education, said he “strongly disagreed” with the supreme court’s decision and vowed to “open up an alternative path to debt relief for as many borrowers as possible, as quickly as possible”.
In ruling against the Biden administration’s landmark student debt forgiveness plan, the court had “ruled against more than 40 million working families”, Cardona said.
We’re not talking about the millionaires who benefited from the billions in tax giveaway a few years ago. We’re talking about low and middle income families recovering from the worst pandemic in a century.
He said it was “outrageous” that Republican members of Congress had “fought so hard against the program that would have helped millions of their own constituents”.
Cardona added:
Today, I want to assure our students, our borrowers and families across America – our fight is not over.
Education Secretary Miguel Cardona speaks during the daily briefing at the White House. Photograph: Susan Walsh/AP
Updated
Court's ruling against Colorado law protecting LGBTQ+ rights 'threatens future progress', says Harris
Vice-president Kamala Harris has spoken out against the supreme court’s ruling today striking down a Colorado civil rights law which compels businesses and organizations to treat same-sex couples equally.
The court’s decision “departs from decades of jurisprudence by creating an exception to protections against discrimination in public accommodations”, a statement from Harris reads.
On the last day of Pride Month, the Supreme Court has paved the way for businesses across our nation to discriminate in the name of “free expression”—against the LGBTQI+ community, racial and religious minorities, the disability community, and women.
At a time when we celebrate hard-won advancements in LGBTQI+ rights, this decision threatens future progress.
She added that she and President Joe Biden would “continue to rigorously enforce federal anti-discrimination protections and fight for the right of all people to participate equally in our society”.
Updated
We have a clip from Joe Biden’s speech where he announced a “new path” on student loan relief that will rely on a different law than the one that the supreme court today said his administration could not use to relieve some $430bn in federal student debt.
Once a person loses their right to vote in Mississippi it is essentially impossible to get it back.
To do so, a disenfranchised person must get the legislature to approve an individualized bill on their behalf by a supermajority in both chambers and then have the governor approve the bill. There are no online instructions or applications and lawmakers can reject or deny an application for any reason.
Hardly anyone successfully makes it through the process. Between 1997 and 2022, an average of seven people successfully made it through the process each year, according to Blake Feldman, a criminal justice researcher in Mississippi.
The supreme court did not say on Friday why it was rejecting the case (it takes four votes on the court to grant review) and Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor were the only two justices who noted their dissent from the denial. Jackson wrote an opinion saying the fifth circuit had committed “two egregious analytical errors that ought to be corrected”.
First, she wrote, even though Mississippi voters removed a crime in 1950 and added two more in 1968, the substance of many of the original crimes from 1890 remained intact. That means that the list is still discriminatory, she wrote in a dissent that was joined by Sotomayor.
“The “remaining crimes” from [the list of crimes] pernicious origin still work the very harm the 1890 Convention intended – denying Black Mississippians the vote,” she wrote.
Updated
The US supreme court turned away a case on Friday challenging Mississippi’s rules around voting rights for people with felony convictions, leaving intact a policy implemented more than a century ago with the explicit goal of preventing Black people from voting.
Those convicted of any one of 23 specific felonies in Mississippi permanently lose the right to vote. The list is rooted in the state’s 1890 constitutional convention, where delegates chose disenfranchising crimes that they believed Black people were more likely to commit.
“We came here to exclude the negro. Nothing short of this will answer,” the president of the convention said at the time. The crimes, which include bribery, theft, carjacking, bigamy and timber larceny, have remained largely the same since then; Mississippi voters amended it remove burglary in 1950 and added murder and rape in 1968.
It continued to have a staggering effect in Mississippi. Sixteen percent of the Black voting-age population remains blocked from casting a ballot, as well as 10% of the overall voting age population, according to an estimate by The Sentencing Project, a criminal justice non-profit. The state is about 38% Black, but Black people make up more than half of Mississippi’s disenfranchised population.
Updated
In his speech at the White House, Joe Biden repeated his criticism of the Republicans who led the successful effort to block his plan to cancel some federal student loan debt.
Biden called out those Republican members who received “hundreds of thousands for themselves” in Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans that were later forgiven, but who had strongly opposed his student debt plan.
The hypocrisy is stunning.
“The hypocrisy is stunning.”
— The Recount (@therecount) June 30, 2023
— President Biden slams members of Congress who opposed student loan debt forgiveness but had their PPP loans forgiven pic.twitter.com/RdMb486gVz
The new student debt relief plan will be implemented under the federal government’s rulemaking process, the White House said, and it seems like it will take months to get the program up and running.
The education department today issued a notice announcing the plan, will hold a virtual public hearing on 18 July and “finalize the issues to be addressed through rulemaking and begin the negotiated rulemaking sessions this fall. The Department will complete this rulemaking as quickly as possible,” according to the White House.
In addition, the White House said the education department will institute “a 12-month ‘on-ramp’ to repayment, running from 1 October 2023 to 30 September 2024, so that financially vulnerable borrowers who miss monthly payments during this period are not considered delinquent, reported to credit bureaus, placed in default, or referred to debt collection agencies.”
Federal student loan payments have been paused since Covid-19 broke out in March 2020, and were set to restart this October. The Biden administration said the “on-ramp” is intended to provide relief to financially struggling borrowers who can’t afford to start making payments again right away.
The Guardian’s Léonie Chao-Fong is taking the blog over now to keep you posted on this developing story.
Updated
Court 'misinterpreted constitution' - Biden
Joe Biden directed blame for the apparent demise of his student debt relief program both at the Republicans who sued over the plan, and at the supreme court justices who ruled against it.
“I think the court misinterpreted the constitution,” Biden said. Asked whether he gave Americans “false hope” by promising $430bn in total debt relief only for it to be blocked in court, he replied, “I didn’t give any false hope. The question was whether or not I would do even more than was requested. What I did I felt was appropriate and was able to be done and would get done.”
“But the Republican snatched away the hope that they were given,” Biden said.
“This new path is legally sound,” Biden said in announcing his new attempt at student loan relief.
“It’s going to take longer, but in my view it’s the best path that remains to providing for as many borrowers as possible. I’m directing my team to move as quickly as possible on law,” the president said.
Updated
Biden announces 'new path' on student debt relief
Joe Biden said he will announce a “new path” on student loan relief that will rely on a different law than the one that the supreme court today his administration could not use to relieve some $430bn in federal student debt.
“I’m announcing today a new path consistent with today’s ruling to provide student debt relief to as many borrowers as possible as quickly as possible. We will ground this new approach in a different law than my original plan, the so-called Higher Education Act. That will allow (education secretary Miguel Cardona) … to compromise, waive, or release loans under certain circumstances,” the president said.
Joe Biden has started his speech by criticizing the Republicans who successfully sued to block his student loan forgiveness program.
“The money was literally about to go out the door, and then Republican elected officials and special interests stepped in. They said no, no, literally snatching from the hands of millions of Americans thousands of dollars of student debt relief that was about to change their lives,” the president said.
“You know, these Republican officials just couldn’t bear the thought of providing relief for working-class, middle-class Americans. Republican state officials sued my administration, attempting to block relief, including to millions of their own constituents.”
Updated
After a delay of 30 minutes, Joe Biden is finally speaking about the supreme court’s block of his student debt relief program.
Let’s listen in.
Lorie Smith is the web designer whose refusal to create a website for a same-sex wedding that may or may not have actually existed led to the supreme court’s conservatives today striking down a Colorado law intended to prevent discrimination against the LGBTQ+ community.
In an interview with Fox News, Smith, whose case was championed by the Christian legal non-profit Alliance Defending Freedom, cheered the court’s decision in the case:
“I am incredibly grateful for the court's decision that affirms that the government cannot force anyone to say something they don't believe.”
— The Recount (@therecount) June 30, 2023
— Christian web designer Lorie Smith praises SCOTUS ruling in her favor after she refused to work on same-sex weddings pic.twitter.com/ja1fHlvS4i
Biden set to address supreme court's ruling against student debt relief program
In a speech at the White House scheduled to start soon, Joe Biden is expected to announce his next moves after the supreme court’s conservative majority stopped him from canceling $430bn in federal student loan debt.
Follow this blog as we cover the speech live.
Updated
Government report faults state department's handling of Afghanistan withdrawal
It’s the Friday afternoon before the Independence Day holiday weekend, and the state department just happened to choose this moment to release a report critical of its handling of the chaotic US withdrawal from Afghanistan.
America’s diplomatic arm “failed to establish a broader task force as the situation in Afghanistan deteriorated”, and “it was unclear who in the Department had the lead,” the report determined, according to the Associated Press. The document was completed in March 2022, but the Biden administration only decided to release it now, though many parts of it remain withheld from the public.
Fortunately for the people of the United States and Afghanistan alike, the AP has it covered extensively:
The State Department failed to do enough planning before the collapse of the U.S.-backed government in Afghanistan, according to a Biden administration review of the department’s performance during the chaotic evacuation of Americans and Afghan allies.
The review repeatedly blames the administrations of both former President Donald Trump and President Joe Biden for their efforts before and after the August 2021 departure of U.S. forces from Kabul. The U.S. evacuated an estimated 124,000 Afghans from the country.
Republicans have in turn accused Biden of not taking responsibility for intelligence failures leading up to the Taliban’s seizure of the country and for the scenes of chaos at Kabul’s airport, where 13 Marines died in a suicide bombing.
The Biden administration released sections of the long-awaited State report, which was completed in March 2022, on the Friday before the July 4 holiday weekend, though it withheld most of the report from public release. It had released a National Security Council review of the withdrawal on the day before Good Friday and the Easter weekend but declined to issue internal Pentagon and State Department assessments.
A State Department task force helped bring out nearly 2,000 Afghan citizens in July and early August 2021, weeks before the Aug. 31, 2021, deadline the U.S. set for withdrawal. They were eligible for processing under a special U.S. visa program for Afghans.
But State “failed to establish a broader task force as the situation in Afghanistan deteriorated,” the report says.
And as the military planned for an evacuation of American civilians and Afghan allies, “it was unclear who in the Department had the lead,” it says.
“The decisions of both President Trump and President Biden to end the U.S. military mission in Afghanistan had serious consequences for the viability of the Afghan government and its security,” the report says. “Those decisions are beyond the scope of this review, but the (review) team found that during both administrations there was insufficient senior-level consideration of worst-case scenarios and how quickly those might follow.”
Updated
After a rough week for Democratic policies at the supreme court, this seven-year-old post from Hillary Clinton is making the rounds on progressive Twitter:
A Republican president could stack the Supreme Court with justices who will rip away all of the progress we’ve made. https://t.co/peZv2sXdQO
— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) January 12, 2016
The three supreme court justices Donald Trump appointed – Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh – all supported the court’s decisions this week overturning affirmative action and Joe Biden’s student debt forgiveness program, as well as curbing laws that protect LGBTQ+ people from discrimination.
Several dozen demonstrators gathered outside the supreme court on Friday following its decision to strike down the Biden’s administration’s student loan forgiveness plan and block millions of borrowers from receiving debt relief.
Tori Wanzer of Maryland was visibly disappointed by the conservative justices’ decision as she stood outside the court with a group representing the American Federation of Teachers (AFT). “It’s absolutely ridiculous,” she told the Guardian. “This ruling negatively impacts so many different groups of people.”
Wanzer questioned the court’s motivation “because it doesn’t seem like it’s for the greater good”. Comparing the decision with Florida governor and Republican presidential candidate Ron DeSantis’s rejection of an Advanced Placement class on African American studies, she said Friday’s ruling felt like it was “just one thing after another”.
“It’s 2023 and we’ve gotten more progressive, with certain movements and groups of people who can be loud and proud with their rights. [The court’s ruling] is a way to stop that. It’s a way for them to take control over who gets assistance and acceptance into certain institutions and who doesn’t – who’s forced to suffer and who is helped to greatness,” Wanzer said.
Bryanna Mitchell, 24, from Arizona, said she was “shocked’ when she heard the court’s ruling today, and that she decided to attend the protest on behalf of the AFT because it was “very necessary to show up for all the people who have student debt” and to call on Joe Biden to “follow through with what he promised us”.
Shanna Hayes of New York described the “shame” she used to feel about carrying her student loan. “It’s not just me,” said Hayes, 34, who is an economic justice fellow at the Student Debt Crisis Center (SDCC). “Many of us have heard the rhetoric – that I’ve made poor decisions, and that I need to pay my bills”.
“But it’s not just people who are in their twenties and thirties. It’s people who are grandparents who are struggling. It’s people who can’t retire because all their retirement funds are going to be taken by the government because they’ve defaulted on their student loans.”
SDCC managing director Sabrina Calazans said the supreme court’s ruling felt like a “gut punch”. “We’re just heartbroken by this decision”, the 26-year-old said.
Calazans said she regularly spoke with people about how they were being personally impacted by student debt. “We hear from people who can’t retire, who can’t get married, who can’t start a family, and who can’t invest in their futures”.
“We need to do something about it. It’s poor, working-class folks, middle-class folks, Black and brown Americans who are disproportionately impacted by student debt.”
Progressives demand Biden invoke 'Plan B' to cancel student debt
The supreme court has the kibosh on Joe Biden’s plan to cancel some federal student debt, but progressives insist the president still has options.
“Today, I am urging the Biden administration to implement a Plan B immediately to cancel student debt for tens of millions of Americans who are struggling to pay the rent, put food on the table, and pay for the basic necessities of life,” said independent senator Bernie Sanders, a longtime proponent of student debt cancellation.
“Despite this legally unsound supreme court decision, the president has the clear authority under the Higher Education Act of 1965 to cancel student debt. He must use this authority immediately. If Republicans could provide trillions of dollars in tax breaks to the top one percent and profitable corporations, if they could cancel hundreds of billions in loans for wealthy business owners during the pandemic when Trump was president and if they could vote to spend $886bn on the Pentagon, please don’t tell me that we cannot afford to cancel student debt for working families.”
His call was echoed by Democratic congressman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who agreed Biden has the legal authority to relieve debt:
It is very important to note this SCOTUS ruling does NOT remove Biden’s ability to pursue student loan forgiveness.
— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) June 30, 2023
The Biden Admin can use the HEA (Higher Ed Act) - our position from the start - to continue loan forgiveness before payments resume. They should do so ASAP. https://t.co/inV3yWsDwB
Just last year, DOE forgave $6 BILLION for defrauded students. Trump completely wiped out debt for disabled veterans. Neither program was challenged nor overturned.
— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) June 30, 2023
We still have the power to cancel and must use it, or we’re looking at an economic crisis for millions of people.
Updated
Prosecutors said today that they have turned over more than 80,000 pages of materials to congressman George Santos’s lawyers in the federal fraud and money laundering case against him, the Associated Press reports.
The documents weren’t publicly released, as is common during this stage of a case. The barely five-minute hearing at a Long Island courthouse focused on the case schedule, with the next court date set for 7 September.
Santos didn’t speak in court, nor (unlike last time) to journalists waiting outside. The New York Republican, known for fabricating key parts his life story, is free on bond, awaiting trial.
Santos pleaded not guilty last month to charges that he duped donors, stole from his campaign, collected fraudulent unemployment benefits and lied to Congress about being a millionaire.
Prosecutors have charged Santos with 13 counts of wire fraud, money laundering, theft of public funds and making false statements to Congress. He faces up to 20 years in prison if convicted.
Meanwhile ABC reports that someone who did speak outside the court was the military veteran Richard Osthoff, who has accused Santos of filching money raised to save his dog.
Navy vet Osthoff who accused Santos of stealing money raised for his dying dog shouted “you killed my dog!” at the Congressman as he left court.
— Will Steakin (@wsteaks) June 30, 2023
He told ABC News he doesn’t want people to forget “what a piece of work he is” https://t.co/YJzMnWthh3 pic.twitter.com/i0tJDndAFh
Updated
The progressive congressman Ro Khanna of California argued the Biden administration still has options to offer relief to student borrowers, even after the supreme court struck down the president’s debt forgiveness program.
As of now, student loan payments are set to resume in September, after a three-year pause precipitated by the coronavirus pandemic.
“We’ve got to figure out how to at least pause the student loan repayment in September, until we make good on our promise to forgive student loans,” Khanna said. “We can’t forsake young people who are relying on the president’s policy.”
Khanna went on to say that Biden should consider invoking the Higher Education Act of 1965 to cancel some student debt. The Biden administration relied on the Heroes Act of 2003 to defend its debt cancelation program, but the court rejected the legal basis for that argument.
Asked whether the White House seems open to those proposals, Khanna replied, “They have engaged in a constructive conversation with those of us in the progressive caucus, but we’ve made it clear: there is no other option. The students who have been promised this forgiveness cannot be repaying student loans in September. That would be a punch to the gut of millions of young Americans across this country.”
Meanwhile, demonstrators have gathered in front of the supreme court building in Washington to protest the court’s decision. The Guardian’s Léonie Chao-Fong is there and will send a dispatch.
Protest outside the Supreme Court following the court’s ruling against the Biden administration’s student debt forgiveness plan pic.twitter.com/NOdl1ytZyT
— Léonie Chao-Fong (@leonie_chaofong) June 30, 2023
Updated
For the second time in two days, Joe Biden will make remarks at the White House in response to decisions by the conservative-controlled US supreme court.
The US president is due to step up to the mike at the White House at 3.30pm ET and make comments on this morning’s court ruling against the legality of his $430bn program to offer student debt relief to up to 40 million Americans.
The White House will speak in the Roosevelt Room. He is expected to talk about options for taking alternative action to relief the loan burden.
These are likely to be brief remarks as, scheduled for 3.45pm is the press briefing by the White House press secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre, who will be accompanied by the secretary of education, Miguel Cardona, and the deputy director of the National Economic Council, Bharat Ramamurti.
Yesterday, speaking from the White House to slam the court’s striking down of affirmative action in US higher education, Biden answered one question called out as he left, following brief remarks. In response to being asked if the justices now represented a “rogue court” he responded: “This is not a normal court.”
Updated
Progressive congressman Ro Khanna of California denounced the supreme court’s decision to scrap Joe Biden’s student debt forgiveness plan, in an interview with the Guardian this morning.
Khanna pointed to the decision as another example of how the “out of touch” court is worsening Americans’ everyday lives.
“It’s a court that is regressive, that is rolling back women’s rights, rolling back rights about racial equality, rolling back environmental protections, rolling back now assistance for young people,” Khanna said. “And it’s exactly why we need term limits on these supreme court justices.”
Khanna has previously demanded term limits for the justices, who serve lifelong terms, but he said the most recent series of hard-right decisions from the court underscore the urgent need to enact the policy.
“Many of these people couldn’t win elections for dogcatcher,” Khanna said. “That’s why we need term limits.”
The day so far
The supreme court’s conservative majority blocked Joe Biden’s plan to relieve some federal student loan debt from borrowers, and also ruled against a Colorado law the protected LGBTQ+ people from discrimination by businesses. Democrats have decried the twin rulings, saying they are further proof that the court has been captured by rightwing Republicans. While many in the GOP are hailing the apparent end of the president’s plan to cancel hundreds of billions of dollars in federal student loans, they are comparatively quiet about the blow struck by the six conservative justices against LGBTQ+ protections. As for Biden, we’ll hear more from him at a to-be-announced time this afternoon, where he says he will speak about the ruling against the loan program.
Here’s what else has happened so far today:
The supreme court agreed to next term take up a case that could give the conservatives a chance to further erode gun control laws.
Indiana’s highest court has allowed its near-total abortion ban to go into effect, a year after the supreme court’s ruling overturning Roe v Wade.
Together with its decision yesterday ending affirmative action, the just-concluded term was another where the supreme court’s conservatives flexed their muscles.
Updated
Biden says Republican 'hypocrisy' is 'stunning' after debt relief struck down
Joe Biden is accusing the Republicans who led the successful effort to block his plan to cancel some federal student loan debt of “stunning” hypocrisy, and vowed to keep fighting to help more Americans afford college degrees.
“The hypocrisy of Republican elected officials is stunning,” the president said in a newly released statement.
“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 came to providing relief to millions of hard-working Americans, they did everything in their power to stop it.”
“I believe that the court’s decision to strike down our student debt relief plan is wrong. But I will stop at nothing to find other ways to deliver relief to hard-working middle-class families. My administration will continue to work to bring the promise of higher education to every American,” the president said.
Promising “the fight is not over,” Biden said: “Later today, I will provide more detail on all that my administration has done to help students and the next steps my administration will take.”
The president’s full statement is here.
Updated
Student loan decision 'unthinkable', Biden says, plans afternoon address
Joe Biden has called the supreme court’s ruling against his student loan cancellation plan “unthinkable”, and announced he will speak on the issue this afternoon:
Unthinkable.
— President Biden (@POTUS) June 30, 2023
This fight isn’t over. I’ll have more to announce when I address the nation this afternoon. https://t.co/wGBuwBySB7
Supreme court conservatives could further erode gun control in next term
After releasing the final decisions of its term today, the supreme court also announced some of the cases it would consider in its next term, including one with significant implications for gun control nationwide.
The court will consider whether a federal law that takes guns away from people who are under a domestic violence restraining order is constitutional. While they are always capable of surprises, recall that last year the six-justice conservative majority handed down a decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v Bruen that greatly expanded the ability of Americans to carry concealed weapons.
As Eric Ruben, an assistant professor at Southern Methodist University’s law school writes, the new case, United States v Rahimi, gives the conservatives an opportunity to strike another blow against gun control:
🚨BREAKING: SCOTUS will decide whether disarming people subject to a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) is constitutional under the Second Amendment. This is a MAJOR stress test of the unprecedented historical-analogical standard created in Bruen. 🧵 pic.twitter.com/GoQ2DNePF3
— Eric Ruben (@ericmruben) June 30, 2023
The case is United States v. Rahimi, an appeal from the Fifth Cir., which struck down the federal law prohibiting those subject to a DVRO from possessing a gun, declaring it an “outlier[] that our ancestors would never have accepted.” Every court prior to Bruen had upheld it. pic.twitter.com/MutyEhpi8H
— Eric Ruben (@ericmruben) June 30, 2023
Why wouldn’t our ancestors have “accepted” DVROs? Partly bc the the Founding gen undervalued women’s lives. Rather than focus on protecting women in abusive relationships, historically the law protected the husband’s prerogative of marital chastisement. https://t.co/u3gSSrCWfZ
— Eric Ruben (@ericmruben) June 30, 2023
Updated
Biden 'deeply concerned' court's decision could fuel LGTBQ+ discrimination
Joe Biden has released a statement expressing his fears that the supreme court’s conservatives may fuel discrimination against gay, lesbian and transgender Americans nationwide by striking down a Colorado law prohibiting businesses from turning away LGBTQ+ people.
The president said:
In America, no person should face discrimination simply because of who they are or who they love. The supreme court’s disappointing decision in 303 Creative LLC v Elenis undermines that basic truth, and painfully it comes during Pride month when millions of Americans across the country join together to celebrate the contributions, resilience, and strength of the LGBTQI+ community. While the court’s decision only addresses expressive original designs, I’m deeply concerned that the decision could invite more discrimination against LGBTQI+ Americans. More broadly, today’s decision weakens long-standing laws that protect all Americans against discrimination in public accommodations – including people of color, people with disabilities, people of faith, and women.
Biden vowed that his administration “will also work with states across the country to fight back against attempts to roll back civil rights protections that could follow this ruling.”
You can read the full statement here.
Updated
Top House Democrat condemns decision against LGBTQ+ protection, GOP keeps quiet
It’s been a tough day for Democrats and their policies at the supreme court, and they’re letting their voters know it, with the party’s leaders and rank-and-file lawmakers alike speaking out against the justices’ decisions curbing LGBTQ+ protections, and stopping Joe Biden from relieving some student loan debt.
But as CNN points out, while plenty of Republicans are cheering the student loan decisions, but few have anything to say about the court’s decision against a Colorado law intended to stop businesses from discriminating against gay people:
One interesting thing this morning: TONS of Republicans have been quick to weigh in on student loan decision. Fewer (including key GOP leaders) are weighing in on case involving gay rights, a sign of how much the politics surrounding the issue have changed in the last decade.
— Lauren Fox (@FoxReports) June 30, 2023
Democrats have no such qualms. In a statement, House minority leader Hakeem Jeffries described the court’s decision in the Colorado case as a step backwards:
Today’s extreme, rightwing supreme court ruling invites a return to a time when businesses were empowered to turn people away simply because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. The overwhelming majority of Americans believe that when a business opens its doors, those doors should be open to all. Unfortunately, the extremists on the supreme court are more interested in jamming their rightwing ideology down the throats of the American people than promoting fundamental fairness.
No person or business should be given a license to discriminate. That is exactly what today’s wrongheaded supreme court decision will unleash. Every individual, no matter who they are or who they love, deserves the freedom to go about their daily lives and access the goods and services they need without fear or discrimination. House Democrats will continue to stand with the LGBTQ+ community until liberty and justice for all prevails and the Equality Act is the law of the land.
Updated
Indiana court allows state's near-total abortion ban to go into effect
A year after the US supreme court overturned Roe v Wade and allowed states to completely prohibit abortion, Indiana’s highest court has allowed its abortion ban to go into effect, Indiana Public Broadcasting reports:
I've deleted my previous tweet, as I have more up-to-date info on when the ban takes effect.
— Brandon J. Smith (@brandonjsmith5) June 30, 2023
The Indiana Supreme Court rules that the state’s near-total abortion ban does NOT violate the Indiana Constitution.
The ban is now set to take effect within the next month or so. https://t.co/8TXiTaA0y9
Indiana was the first state in the nation to pass an abortion ban after the end of Roe v Wade, but its supreme court blocked the measure passed by the Republican-dominated legislature later in 2022.
Updated
As the Senate’s top Republican, Mitch McConnell has played a major role in creating the court’s current conservative majority.
He famously stopped Barack Obama from filing a vacancy on the court with one of his nominees, then presided over the confirmation of three of Donald Trump’s justices – all of whom gave their support to the court’s decisions overturning Roe v Wade, affirmative action and, today, blocking Joe Biden’s student debt relief plan.
McConnell is of course happy with that most recent decision. Here’s what he has to say:
The American people know that the Biden administration’s student loan socialism plan would be a raw deal for hardworking taxpayers. Now that the supreme court has rejected the administration’s position in Biden v Nebraska, they can know that it’s illegal.
The president of the United States cannot hijack 20-year-old emergency powers to pad the pockets of his high-earning base and make suckers out of working families who choose not to take on student debt. The court’s decision today deals a heavy blow to Democrats’ distorted and outsized view of executive power.
Updated
The Democratic senator Elizabeth Warren is a longtime advocate for cancelling student loan debt.
Here’s what she had to say about the supreme court’s ruling against Joe Biden’s attempt to partially do so:
The same Supreme Court that overturned Roe now refuses to follow the plain language of the law on student loan cancellation. This fight is not over. The President has more tools to cancel student debt — and he must use them.
— Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) June 30, 2023
More than 40 million hard working Americans are waiting for the help that President Biden promised them, and they expect this administration to throw everything they’ve got into the fight until they make good on this commitment.
— Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) June 30, 2023
Updated
Joe Biden’s proposal would have canceled some – but not all – of the federal debt many Americans have taken out to funder higher education. The supreme court has now put a stop to it. Here’s more about what that means, from the Guardian’s Erum Salam:
The supreme court has ruled against the Biden administration’s student debt forgiveness plan in a blow to up to 40 million borrowers in the US.
The case, Biden v Nebraska, against the plan was originally brought by a coalition of six Republican-led states – Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska and South Carolina – arguing that Congress should have approved any student loan debt cancellation plan and that the Biden administration and the US education department are abusing emergency authority.
Under Joe Biden’s loan forgiveness plan, announced last August, $20,000 per person of federal student debt would have been forgiven for borrowers who were Pell grant recipients and up to $10,000 of debt would have been forgiven for other borrowers.
Biden plans 'new actions' to protect student loan borrowers
Joe Biden will today announce “new actions” to protect people who take out student loans, Reuters reports, citing a White House source.
“While we strongly disagree with the court, we prepared for this scenario,” the source said. “The president will make clear he’s not done fighting yet, and will announce new actions to protect student loan borrowers … The president will make clear he’s not done fighting yet, and will announce new actions to protect student loan borrowers.”
Updated
Ruling against debt relief 'cruel', Senate's Democratic leader says, vowing, 'fight will not end here'
The Senate’s Democratic leader Chuck Schumer is out with a statement both condemning the supreme court’s ruling against Joe Biden’s student debt relief program and claiming that the court’s conservative justices are, essentially, in Donald Trump’s pocket:
This disappointing and cruel ruling shows the callousness of the Maga Republican-controlled supreme court. The hypocrisy is clear: as justices accept lavish, six-figure gifts, they don’t dare to help Americans saddled with student loan debt, instead siding with the powerful, big-monied interests.
The fight will not end here. The Biden administration has remaining legal routes to provide broad-based student debt cancellation. With the pause on student loan payments set to expire in weeks, I call upon the administration to do everything in its power to deliver for millions of working- and middle-class Americans struggling with student loan debt.
Updated
Public opinions polls have shown the supreme court is increasingly disliked by Americans, and chief justice John Roberts seems to know it.
At the conclusion of his majority opinion in Biden v Nebraska, the case in which Roberts and the court’s five other conservative justices ruled against the president’s program to relieve some federal student loan debt, he inserts a plea for understanding.
“It has become a disturbing feature of some recent opinions to criticize the decisions with which they disagree as going beyond the proper role of the judiciary,” writes Roberts, who was appointed to his post by Republican president George W Bush in 2005.
He continues:
Reasonable minds may disagree with our analysis – in fact, at least three do … We do not mistake this plainly heartfelt disagreement for disparagement. It is important that the public not be misled either. Any such misperception would be harmful to this institution and our country.
Updated
Republicans cheer court ruling against Biden debt relief plan
GOP party leaders and presidential candidates are pleased as punch that the supreme court’s conservatives have stopped Joe Biden from relieving some federal student loan debt.
Here’s House speaker Kevin McCarthy:
BREAKING —> President Biden’s student loan giveaway is ruled UNLAWFUL. The 87% of Americans without student loans are no longer forced to pay for the 13% who do.
— Kevin McCarthy (@SpeakerMcCarthy) June 30, 2023
This builds on the Fiscal Responsibility Act’s end to the payment pause. The President must follow the law.
Or former vice-president and current presidential candidate Mike Pence, who said:
Joe Biden’s massive trillion-dollar student loan bailout subsidizes the education of elites on the backs of hardworking Americans, and it was an egregious violation of the Constitution for him to attempt to do so unilaterally with the stroke of the executive pen. I am pleased that the Court struck down the Radical Left’s effort to use the money of taxpayers who played by the rules and repaid their debts in order to cancel the debt of bankers and lawyers in New York, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C. I am honored to have played a role in appointing three of the Justices that ensured today’s welcomed decision, and as President I will continue to appoint judges who will strictly apply the law and enforce our Constitution’s separation of powers.
And Nikki Haley, once Donald Trump’s United Nations ambassador, now a competitor for the GOP’s presidential nomination:
A president cannot just wave his hand and eliminate loans for students he favors, while leaving out all those who worked hard to pay back their loans or made other career choices. The Supreme Court was right to throw out Joe Biden’s power grab.
Supreme court conservatives close term by stopping debt relief and affirmative action, curbing LGTBQ+ protections
It took years of work and consecutive victories in crucial elections for Republican lawmakers to create the current conservative majority on the supreme court, but it paid off for the GOP over the past two days as the justices handed down multiple rulings in the party’s favor.
Today, the six conservatives on the nation’s highest court blocked Joe Biden’s attempt to relieve some federal student loan debt at the request of a group of Republican attorneys general, and also ruled against a Colorado law intended to protect the LGBTQ+ community from discrimination by businesses.
And yesterday, they issued a ruling that did away for good with race-conscious admissions at universities, a practice that has long been in the crosshairs of the American right.
As is usually the case with the supreme court, the implications of these rulings will take months to filter across the country, but one things is clear: it has once again been a good term for Republicans and their policies at the nation’s highest court.
Updated
“In every respect, the Court today exceeds its proper, limited role in our Nation’s governance.”
Thus begins justice Elena Kagan’s dissent against the conservative majority’s decision stopping Joe Biden from relieving some federal student loan debt. She was joined by her two fellow liberals on the court.
It’s a long read with lots in it, but here’s a good encapsulation of Kagan’s counterargument:
The Court reads statutes unnaturally, seeking to cabin their evident scope. And the Court applies heightened-specificity requirements, thwarting Congress’s efforts to ensure adequate responses to unforeseen events. The result here is that the Court substitutes itself for Congress and the Executive Branch in making national policy about student-loan forgiveness. Congress authorized the forgiveness plan (among many other actions); the Secretary put it in place; and the President would have been accountable for its success or failure. But this Court today decides that some 40 million Americans will not receive the benefits the plan provides, because (so says the Court) that assistance is too “significan[t].”
Supreme court chief justice John Roberts, a conservative, authored the majority opinion striking down Joe Biden’s attempt to relieve some student loan debt.
He concluded:
Last year, the Secretary of Education established the first comprehensive student loan forgiveness program, invoking the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003 (HEROES Act) for authority to do so. The Secretary’s plan canceled roughly $430 billion of federal student loan balances, completely erasing the debts of 20 million borrowers and lowering the median amount owed by the other 23 million from $29,400 to $13,600 … Six States sued, arguing that the HEROES Act does not authorize the loan cancellation plan. We agree.
Supreme court conservatives strike down Biden's student debt relief program
In their second opinion, the supreme court’s conservative majority struck down Joe Biden’s program to relieve some federal student loan debt.
The three liberal justices dissented.
Updated
Court turns down first challenge to Biden student loan relief plan
The supreme court unanimously turned down one of two challenges to Joe Biden’s student loan relief plan, saying the respondents had no standing.
We are waiting for the court’s opinion in the second challenge to the program.
Updated
SCOTUSblog, which has somebody inside the supreme court, reports that Neil Gorsuch read aloud from his majority opinion in the Colorado LGBTQ+ rights case, and Sonia Sotomayor is doing the same from her dissent.
That explains the delay between releasing opinions.
Updated
The supreme court is not done issuing opinions.
The two cases left both concern Joe Biden’s program to cancel some federal student loan debt. We expect to get both decisions in a few minutes.
Sonia Sotomayor wrote the dissent in the Colorado LGTBQ+ rights case, which was joined by the court’s two other liberal justices.
“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,” Sotomayor wrote.
“Specifically, the Court holds that the First Amendment exempts a website design company from a state law that prohibits the company from denying wedding websites to same-sex couples if the company chooses to sell those websites to the public.”
She continues:
A business open to the public seeks to deny gay and lesbian customers the full and equal enjoyment of its services based on the owner’s religious belief that same-sex marriages are ‘false’. The business argues, and a majority of the Court agrees, that because the business offers services that are customized and expressive, the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment shields the business from a generally applicable law that prohibits discrimination in the sale of publicly available goods and services. That is wrong. Profoundly wrong
“Our Constitution contains no right to refuse service to a disfavored group,” Sotomayor writes. “I dissent.”
Updated
Here’s the meat of the majority opinion in the Colorado LGBTQ+ rights case, as written by conservative justice Neil Gorsuch.
“In this case, 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,” writes Gorsuch, who ruled against the Colorado law, along with the court’s five other conservatives.
“But, as this Court has long held, the opportunity to think for ourselves and to express those thoughts freely is among our most cherished liberties and part of what keeps our Republic strong. Of course, abiding the Constitution’s commitment to the freedom of speech means all of us will encounter ideas we consider ‘unattractive’, ‘misguided, or even hurtful’, But tolerance, not coercion, is our Nation’s answer. The First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands.”
Updated
Supreme court conservatives rule against Colorado law protecting LGBTQ+ rights
In its first decision of the day, the supreme court’s six conservatives ruled against a Colorado law meant to ban discrimination by businesses against members of the LGBTQ+ community.
Supreme court to announce decisions
The supreme court will in a few minutes release their opinions in what are expected to be the last three cases outstanding from this term. The conservative-dominated bench may issue decisions concerning Joe Biden’s student loan relief program, and a Colorado law meant to protect LGBTQ+ rights.
Follow along here as the decisions come out.
Yesterday, the supreme court’s conservatives banded together to strike down race-conscious admissions at universities. It’s too soon to say how colleges nationwide will react to their ruling, but the Guardian’s Edwin Rios reports that if the experience of two major universities is any indication, the decision could mean much fewer Black and Indigenous American students in student bodies:
The supreme court’s decision to strike down race-consciousness in college admissions will upend the academic landscape for millions of people. But students in nine states already live in a post-affirmative action world.
In 1996, Californians voted to ban race-conscious affirmative action policies in the state’s public universities. Since then, eight other states – Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma and Washington – have also barred race-based considerations, often through ballot initiatives approved by the states’ voters. Some universities in these states report that the bans have made it significantly harder to achieve racial diversity on their campuses.
The University of California and the University of Michigan, whose representatives submitted arguments to the supreme court in support of race-conscious admissions, are two such schools. In the years since Michigan voters ended affirmative action in 2006, for instance, the number of Black and Indigenous American students at the University of Michigan has plummeted. The same happened at UC Berkeley and UCLA after voters approved a ban in 1996. And despite developing numerous strategies to supplement the lack of affirmative action policies with other outreach tactics, the representatives wrote, their efforts have failed.
The group behind 303 Creative LLC v Elenis, the supreme court case that could roll back LGBTQ+ rights, depending on how the justices rule, has seen a surge in revenue in recent years, and channeled that money to other groups promoting rightwing causes, the Guardian’s Adam Gabbatt reports:
A rightwing Christian “hate group” which is behind a host of legal efforts to roll back abortion rights, remove LGBTQ+ protections and demonize trans people has seen a huge increase in its funding and has funneled some of that money to a slew of smaller anti-LGBTQ+ and anti-abortion groups across the US, the Guardian can reveal.
The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a registered nonprofit behind the ongoing 303 Creative supreme court case which could chip away at LGBTQ+ rights, saw its revenue surge by more than $25m between 2020 and 2021, a period in which a rightwing obsession with transgender rights and sexual orientation saw almost 200 anti-LGBTQ+ bills introduced in states around the US.
Updated
In major LGBTQ+ rights case before supreme court, all is not as it seems
The supreme court could today issue its opinion in 303 Creative LLC v Elenis, which deals with a Colorado law that prohibits businesses from discriminating against gay people, or stating that they would. There’s no telling how they might rule, but the court’s conservative majority could use the case as an opportunity to roll back LGBTQ+ protections nationwide.
Yesterday, Guardian’s Sam Levine reported that it appears a document with a major role in the case could have been fabricated – but that fact may not make a difference in the case.
Here’s more from his story:
The veracity of a key document in a major LGBTQ+ rights case before the US supreme court has come under question, raising the possibility that important evidence cited in it might be wrong or even falsified.
The supreme court is expected to issue a ruling on Friday in 303 Creative LLC v Elenis, which deals with a challenge to a Colorado law prohibiting public-serving businesses from discriminating against gay people as well as any statements announcing such a policy.
The suit centers on Lorie Smith, a website designer who does not want to provide her services for gay weddings because of her religious objections.
In 2016, she says, a gay man named Stewart requested her services for help with his upcoming wedding. “We are getting married early next year and would love some design work done for our invites, placenames etc. We might also stretch to a website,” reads a message he apparently sent her through her website.
In court filings, her lawyers produced a copy of the inquiry.
But Stewart, who requested his last name be withheld for privacy, said in an interview with the Guardian that he never sent the message, even though it correctly lists his email address and telephone number. He has also been happily married to a woman for the last 15 years, he said. The news was first reported by the New Republic.
In fact, until he received a call this week from a reporter from the magazine, Stewart said he had no idea he was somehow tied up in a case that had made it to the supreme court.
“I can confirm I did not contact 303 Creative about a website,” he said. “It’s fraudulent insomuch as someone is pretending to be me and looking to marry someone called Mike. That’s not me.
“What’s most concerning to me is that this is kind of like the one main piece of evidence that’s been part of this case for the last six-plus years and it’s false,” he added. “Nobody’s checked it. Anybody can pick up the phone, write an email, send a text, to verify whether that was correct information.”
Student debt relief, LGBTQ+ protections at risk as supreme court issues more opinions
Good morning, US politics blog readers. The supreme court will likely issue their final opinions of their term at 10am ET, and two cases with major implications are yet to be decided. The first concerns Joe Biden’s student debt relief plan, which conservative groups are asking the court to halt. The other is a challenge, again by a rightwing group, to a Colorado law protecting LGBTQ+ rights, which centers on a web designer who did not want to work with a same-sex couple. The court is dominated by conservative justices, and while they maintained the status quo on voting rights and election law earlier this term, they again showed their willingness to upend longstanding practice with yesterday’s ruling against affirmative action. We’ll see if that streak continues in the cases they could decide today.
Here’s what else is happening:
Kamala Harris will participate in a moderated conversation on reproductive and mental health, among other topics, at New Orleans’s ESSENCE Festival of Culture at 3.50pm CT.
Biden elaborated on his comment that the current supreme court is “not a normal court” in an interview with MSNBC last night.
Donald Trump, Ron DeSantis and other Republican 2024 presidential hopefuls will appear today at an event hosted by Moms for Liberty, which distinguishes itself among conservative groups for its opposition to classroom teaching of race and gender identity.
