RUSH TRANSCRIPT Joining me ░░░░░░░░ Laura Jarrett Daniel holly ░░░░░░░░ Dean of howard university ░░░░░░░░ school Jennifer masta former ░░░░░░░░ to justices Thomas and ░░░░░░░░ also to judge Kavanaugh ░░░░░░░░ he was a judge ░░░░░░░░ Barbara McQuade University of ░░░░░░░░ law professor and former ░░░░░░░░ S attorney plus Jen ░░░░░░░░ host of MSNBC s ░░░░░░░░ with Jen Psaki on ░░░░░░░░ at noon More major ░░░░░░░░ to end this term ░░░░░░░░ sum them up I ░░░░░░░░ just looking at the ░░░░░░░░ decision and I can ░░░░░░░░ anplication to civil rights ░░░░░░░░ that can have broader ░░░░░░░░ down the road I ░░░░░░░░ what you re seeing ░░░░░░░░ in combination between today ░░░░░░░░ decisions and the decision ░░░░░░░░ on affirmative action is ░░░░░░░░ court that is deeply ░░░░░░░░ with dramatically different world ░░░░░░░░ about discrimination about the ░░░░░░░░ of disenfranchised minorities and ░░░░░░░░ to do about that ░░░░░░░░ the case of the ░░░░░░░░ disciper in Colorado she ░░░░░░░░ I m happy to ░░░░░░░░ websites for gay people ░░░░░░░░ general and just don ░░░░░░░░ want to do wedding ░░░░░░░░ And the problem with ░░░░░░░░ it runs head first ░░░░░░░░ public accommodation laws in ░░░░░░░░ state of Colorado like ░░░░░░░░ places it says you ░░░░░░░░ discriminate against people for ░░░░░░░░ orientation So if you ░░░░░░░░ going to hold yourself ░░░░░░░░ to as a business ░░░░░░░░ everybody you have to ░░░░░░░░ yourself to everybody The ░░░░░░░░ saying you ve now ░░░░░░░░ open season for discrimination ░░░░░░░░ all kinds of different ░░░░░░░░ not just limited to ░░░░░░░░ peoples but on the ░░░░░░░░ of race What s ░░░░░░░░ stop someone from saying ░░░░░░░░ don t want to ░░░░░░░░ couples that are in ░░░░░░░░ interracial relationship There s ░░░░░░░░ meaningful difference there The ░░░░░░░░ for Justice Gorsuch is ░░░░░░░░ s narrowly tailored in ░░░░░░░░ case to the facts ░░░░░░░░ the fact is the ░░░░░░░░ stipulated she s making ░░░░░░░░ unique So there s ░░░░░░░░ debate going on whether ░░░░░░░░ will actually meaningfully bleed ░░░░░░░░ other things other public ░░░░░░░░ On the student loan ░░░░░░░░ I think it s ░░░░░░░░ to what we saw ░░░░░░░░ on affirmative action In ░░░░░░░░ they say the president ░░░░░░░░ t have the authority ░░░░░░░░ do something this bold ░░░░░░░░ such economic and political ░░░░░░░░ It s a plan ░░░░░░░░ would have forgiven millions ░░░░░░░░ student loans for millions ░░░░░░░░ Americans more than 40 ░░░░░░░░ But thought they didn ░░░░░░░░ have the authority It ░░░░░░░░ a ramification for peoples ░░░░░░░░ again on that one ░░░░░░░░ on affirmative action it ░░░░░░░░ quite significant And danielle ░░░░░░░░ you spent so much ░░░░░░░░ your career on student ░░░░░░░░ Let me pick up ░░░░░░░░ exactly what lura was ░░░░░░░░ talking about because first ░░░░░░░░ all this is a ░░░░░░░░ She doesn t have ░░░░░░░░ website She s saying ░░░░░░░░ the future if she ░░░░░░░░ a waebsite this would ░░░░░░░░ on her First Amendment ░░░░░░░░ her creative abilities So ░░░░░░░░ looks to me this ░░░░░░░░ an issue where they ░░░░░░░░ looking for a case ░░░░░░░░ bring because it wasn ░░░░░░░░ right and that s ░░░░░░░░ surprised it even got ░░░░░░░░ far that it wasn ░░░░░░░░ rejected on standing She ░░░░░░░░ not suffered any harm ░░░░░░░░ far One of the ░░░░░░░░ between the two cases ░░░░░░░░ was definitely the question ░░░░░░░░ there was a live ░░░░░░░░ or controversy to be ░░░░░░░░ by the Supreme Court ░░░░░░░░ in the 330 created ░░░░░░░░ the LGBTQ case I ░░░░░░░░ the question really was ░░░░░░░░ this pure speculation She ░░░░░░░░ not made any websites ░░░░░░░░ this kind Further reporting ░░░░░░░░ shown whether there was ░░░░░░░░ question anyone ever requested ░░░░░░░░ to make a website ░░░░░░░░ this kind And in ░░░░░░░░ student loan case I ░░░░░░░░ they found in the ░░░░░░░░ borrower s case they ░░░░░░░░ there was no standing ░░░░░░░░ they found at least ░░░░░░░░ had standing in the ░░░░░░░░ they eventually found to ░░░░░░░░ the student loan relief ░░░░░░░░ I think in that ░░░░░░░░ justice kagen points out ░░░░░░░░ well that this is ░░░░░░░░ question of separation of ░░░░░░░░ Should the court be ░░░░░░░░ involved in what the ░░░░░░░░ Branch is doing on ░░░░░░░░ issue that s so ░░░░░░░░ to 40 million borrowers ░░░░░░░░ would have wiped out ░░░░░░░░ debt of about 20 ░░░░░░░░ borrowers Is this a ░░░░░░░░ for the court or ░░░░░░░░ it a question for ░░░░░░░░ executive Branch to sort ░░░░░░░░ especially after Covid where ░░░░░░░░ were trying to use ░░░░░░░░ procedures to help people ░░░░░░░░ the wake of Covid ░░░░░░░░ Psaki you actually were ░░░░░░░░ the administration and are ░░░░░░░░ with the student loan ░░░░░░░░ Yeah And also with ░░░░░░░░ fact of the youth ░░░░░░░░ and how important this ░░░░░░░░ to Joe Biden First ░░░░░░░░ all the cost of ░░░░░░░░ is crippling That s ░░░░░░░░ the president wanted to ░░░░░░░░ this to provide some ░░░░░░░░ to students across the ░░░░░░░░ This should be combined ░░░░░░░░ we think about it ░░░░░░░░ the ulfirmative action decision ░░░░░░░░ These decisions over the ░░░░░░░░ 24 hours are essentially ░░░░░░░░ it harder for a ░░░░░░░░ of communities to go ░░░░░░░░ college and seek a ░░░░░░░░ education because of affordability ░░░░░░░░ of the impact affirmative ░░░░░░░░ is going to have ░░░░░░░░ communities of color trying ░░░░░░░░ seek a college education ░░░░░░░░ s not the direction ░░░░░░░░ country should be going ░░░░░░░░ so yes it s ░░░░░░░░ blow If you re ░░░░░░░░ in the White House ░░░░░░░░ now they re probably ░░░░░░░░ this afternoon to discuss ░░░░░░░░ else they can do ░░░░░░░░ debt relief what else ░░░░░░░░ can do for the ░░░░░░░░ of college But all ░░░░░░░░ this is going to ░░░░░░░░ a huge impact I ░░░░░░░░ on the courts and ░░░░░░░░ of the courts They ░░░░░░░░ at 30 according to ░░░░░░░░ poll last week These ░░░░░░░░ of decisions are something ░░░░░░░░ activates young people activates ░░░░░░░░ to kind of speak ░░░░░░░░ to vote to have ░░░░░░░░ voice heard We certainly ░░░░░░░░ the effect of the ░░░░░░░░ decision Jennifer let me ░░░░░░░░ you how this conservative ░░░░░░░░ appointed by President Trump ░░░░░░░░ are making history ever ░░░░░░░░ and they re using ░░░░░░░░ power I think a ░░░░░░░░ of this comes down ░░░░░░░░ context For example on ░░░░░░░░ student loan things I ░░░░░░░░ they re saying really ░░░░░░░░ decisions are made by ░░░░░░░░ which has a broader ░░░░░░░░ base and interest then ░░░░░░░░ executive Branch And so ░░░░░░░░ the president is going ░░░░░░░░ use a statute that ░░░░░░░░ put into place for ░░░░░░░░ waiver of in circumstances ░░░░░░░░ there s an emergency ░░░░░░░░ originally was used in ░░░░░░░░ of military personnel that ░░░░░░░░ is not it is ░░░░░░░░ the congressional party that ░░░░░░░░ given and so it ░░░░░░░░ time to go back ░░░░░░░░ Congress if folks would ░░░░░░░░ there to be different ░░░░░░░░ options And I think ░░░░░░░░ decision yesterday the courts ░░░░░░░░ some concern with particularly ░░░░░░░░ the case of Harvard ░░░░░░░░ seeing perhaps discrimination against ░░░░░░░░ Americans so one group ░░░░░░░░ not wanting there to ░░░░░░░░ people favored just on ░░░░░░░░ basis of race As ░░░░░░░░ as the court making ░░░░░░░░ I ve been in ░░░░░░░░ conference where the top ░░░░░░░░ Court advocate was giving ░░░░░░░░ on this And interestingly ░░░░░░░░ least as of yesterday ░░░░░░░░ found Justice Thomas and ░░░░░░░░ Alito were actually more ░░░░░░░░ dissent this term than ░░░░░░░░ just kagen and Sotomayor ░░░░░░░░ might be surprise But ░░░░░░░░ if you look across ░░░░░░░░ board at some of ░░░░░░░░ decisions not in favor ░░░░░░░░ the business community and ░░░░░░░░ voting rights decision the ░░░░░░░░ day it actually appears ░░░░░░░░ and Alito may have ░░░░░░░░ in the majority than ░░░░░░░░ of the justices today ░░░░░░░░ s partly because they ░░░░░░░░ doing the less controversial ░░░░░░░░ up front earlier and ░░░░░░░░ clearly divided and arguing ░░░░░░░░ and forth in different ░░░░░░░░ opinions draft opinions back ░░░░░░░░ forth and leaving these ░░░░░░░░ most important ones arguably ░░░░░░░░ roberts certainly weighed in ░░░░░░░░ that Barbara McQuade let ░░░░░░░░ ask you about the ░░░░░░░░ designer decision because there ░░░░░░░░ a lot of suggestion ░░░░░░░░ that alluding to what ░░░░░░░░ Alito and Thomas in ░░░░░░░░ said at the end ░░░░░░░░ a Dobbs decision that ░░░░░░░░ could be tormented more ░░░░░░░░ beyond you know the ░░░░░░░░ I think that s ░░░░░░░░ And if you read ░░░░░░░░ Sotomayor s dissent which ░░░░░░░░ says is chutely true ░░░░░░░░ today the court relegates ░░░░░░░░ LGBTQ community to second ░░░░░░░░ status We ve seen ░░░░░░░░ the history of the ░░░░░░░░ that they would not ░░░░░░░░ these kind of discriminatory ░░░░░░░░ against people of color ░░░░░░░░ against people of religious ░░░░░░░░ But when it comes ░░░░░░░░ LGBTQ couples you know ░░░░░░░░ this belief that these ░░░░░░░░ are quote false is ░░░░░░░░ to Trump that right ░░░░░░░░ public accommodation It really ░░░░░░░░ out to me as ░░░░░░░░ Sotomayor says not just ░░░░░░░░ but profoundly wrong and ░░░░░░░░ concern is now it ░░░░░░░░ open season Anybody who ░░░░░░░░ a business who doesn ░░░░░░░░ want to serve gay ░░░░░░░░ or gay individuals can ░░░░░░░░ say I m going ░░░░░░░░ cite the 303 creative ░░░░░░░░ I m going put ░░░░░░░░ a sign that says ░░░░░░░░ gays aloud She sites ░░░░░░░░ history that used to ░░░░░░░░ no dogs or Jews ░░░░░░░░ is now fair game ░░░░░░░░ the comes to the ░░░░░░░░ community And handicapped asked ░░░░░░░░ people are also in ░░░░░░░░ cross hairs potentially Do ░░░░░░░░ think Barbara before I ░░░░░░░░ you go there on ░░░░░░░░ subject do you think ░░░░░░░░ could be in play ░░░░░░░░ marriage I do because ░░░░░░░░ you mention what Justice ░░░░░░░░ said that anything that ░░░░░░░░ on substantive process was ░░░░░░░░ game And if you ░░░░░░░░ Dobbs though they were ░░░░░░░░ it s strictly limited ░░░░░░░░ this issue but the ░░░░░░░░ for it was to ░░░░░░░░ there s not this ░░░░░░░░ fairness substantive due process ░░░░░░░░ And any right that ░░░░░░░░ on that and one ░░░░░░░░ them is same sex ░░░░░░░░ I think it s ░░░░░░░░ game if the court ░░░░░░░░ to take it up ░░░░░░░░ Laura Jarrett you were ░░░░░░░░ morning moving because the ░░░░░░░░ because there was another ░░░░░░░░ case for spousal abuse ░░░░░░░░ and they ve now ░░░░░░░░ that up Do you ░░░░░░░░ to explain the significance ░░░░░░░░ that Yeah that could ░░░░░░░░ a big one At ░░░░░░░░ end of the term ░░░░░░░░ do sort of a ░░░░░░░░ order if you will ░░░░░░░░ it has a list ░░░░░░░░ cases they re going ░░░░░░░░ hear next term and ░░░░░░░░ of the cases on ░░░░░░░░ has to do with ░░░░░░░░ federal law that had ░░░░░░░░ people who had restraining ░░░░░░░░ for domestic violence shouldn ░░░░░░░░ have firearms Well the ░░░░░░░░ circuit court said no ░░░░░░░░ s not okay under ░░░░░░░░ Court pres dependent and ░░░░░░░░ struck it down So ░░░░░░░░ actually gutted the federal ░░░░░░░░ The Justice Department as ░░░░░░░░ might emergency appealed that ░░░░░░░░ listed the Supreme Court ░░░░░░░░ put the law back ░░░░░░░░ play Now the Supreme ░░░░░░░░ has taken it up ░░░░░░░░ given the Supreme Court ░░░░░░░░ rulings when it comes ░░░░░░░░ the Second Amendment and ░░░░░░░░ I think it s ░░░░░░░░ a lot of eyebrows ░░░░░░░░ what exactly they would ░░░░░░░░ to do here Now ░░░░░░░░ they would uphold the ░░░░░░░░ of gun owners to ░░░░░░░░ firearms after they have ░░░░░░░░ order for domestic violence ░░░░░░░░ maybe they wouldn t ░░░░░░░░ to go that far ░░░░░░░░ say actually going to ░░░░░░░░ sure federal law is ░░░░░░░░ We ll see what ░░░░░░░░ say here but another ░░░░░░░░ law when it comes ░░░░░░░░ fundamental rights when it ░░░░░░░░ to constitution violence against ░░░░░░░░ It ll be a ░░░░░░░░ case to watch next ░░░░░░░░ And Jen Psaki this ░░░░░░░░ another case guns and ░░░░░░░░ cetera has been an ░░░░░░░░ on the right It ░░░░░░░░ also become a hot ░░░░░░░░ issue on the left ░░░░░░░░ I listen to Laura ░░░░░░░░ that case I m ░░░░░░░░ a lawyer so I ░░░░░░░░ not giving legal analysis ░░░░░░░░ but the challenge the ░░░░░░░░ Court has is that ░░░░░░░░ of these decisions have ░░░░░░░░ impacts on peoples lives ░░░░░░░░ they just don t ░░░░░░░░ right or sit well ░░░░░░░░ people across the country ░░░░░░░░ to danielle is there ░░░░░░░░ issue here with the ░░░░░░░░ has to begin to ░░░░░░░░ about the respect and ░░░░░░░░ running a political campaign ░░░░░░░░ a popularity contest but ░░░░░░░░ need to be observed ░░░░░░░░ movings need to be ░░░░░░░░ and that requires the ░░░░░░░░ electorate that America really ░░░░░░░░ what they re doing ░░░░░░░░ I think institutional accountability ░░░░░░░░ institutional credibility is really ░░░░░░░░ issue for the Supreme ░░░░░░░░ We see their approval ░░░░░░░░ in the 30s and ░░░░░░░░ decisions that have such ░░░░░░░░ negative impact on the ░░░░░░░░ of everyday people especially ░░░░░░░░ you begin to overturn ░░░░░░░░ long standing precedent like ░░░░░░░░ last year and yesterday ░░░░░░░░ the aurm firmative action ░░░░░░░░ in which that was ░░░░░░░░ a 45 year old ░░░░░░░░ that was wiped away ░░░░░░░░ have to consider what ░░░░░░░░ the institutional consideration their ░░░░░░░░ and I think those ░░░░░░░░ things put together the ░░░░░░░░ long term questions and ░░░░░░░░ ethics question begin to ░░░░░░░░ the spectrum the Supreme ░░░░░░░░ issing us back 50 ░░░░░░░░ 60 years and wonder ░░░░░░░░ is the limit to ░░░░░░░░ Especially when you see ░░░░░░░░ 6 3 opinions in ░░░░░░░░ important cases it calls ░░░░░░░░ mind all those important ░░░░░░░░ questions Jennifer what about ░░░░░░░░ issue of confirmations because ░░░░░░░░ all the old confirmations ░░░░░░░░ all said they would ░░░░░░░░ precedents and now you ░░░░░░░░ them in Dobbs and ░░░░░░░░ affirmative action case clearly ░░░░░░░░ against precedent I think ░░░░░░░░ s interesting the difference ░░░░░░░░ the Dobbs opinion joined ░░░░░░░░ Justice Alito versus the ░░░░░░░░ justices joining yesterday it ░░░░░░░░ seem to me the ░░░░░░░░ he declined to expressly ░░░░░░░░ yesterday I think at ░░░░░░░░ my sense reading between ░░░░░░░░ lines there tactically they ░░░░░░░░ see the court as ░░░░░░░░ to treat the precedent ░░░░░░░░ bit differently this career ░░░░░░░░ not expressly overruling something ░░░░░░░░ go back to the ░░░░░░░░ cake case I also ░░░░░░░░ it s important there ░░░░░░░░ look at the controversial ░░░░░░░░ which I think the ░░░░░░░░ perceive to be fairly ░░░░░░░░ because Justice Gorsuch starts ░░░░░░░░ actually saying that the ░░░░░░░░ cake designer explicitly confirmed ░░░░░░░░ d be willing to ░░░░░░░░ with people obviously of ░░░░░░░░ backgrounds and not discriminate ░░░░░░░░ that here it was ░░░░░░░░ important everybody in the ░░░░░░░░ conceded expressive activity was ░░░░░░░░ stake What the court ░░░░░░░░ finding today is that ░░░░░░░░ First Amendment means the ░░░░░░░░ cannot control somebody to ░░░░░░░░ product that has a ░░░░░░░░ that differs from their ░░░░░░░░ beliefs just as the ░░░░░░░░ in the past that ░░░░░░░░ school districts can t ░░░░░░░░ children raise their hand ░░░░░░░░ the flag We wouldn ░░░░░░░░ say an atheist has ░░░░░░░░ force someone to convert ░░░░░░░░ a religion they don ░░░░░░░░ believe in The court ░░░░░░░░ saying here we re ░░░░░░░░ going to allow Colorado ░░░░░░░░ force the wedding designer ░░░░░░░░ have to create these ░░░░░░░░ but she will serve ░░░░░░░░ people the best she ░░░░░░░░ Thanks to you Thanks ░░░░░░░░ all.