i really appreciate it. i m going to pivot now to this new decision. we re just getting a ruling on the student loan forgiveness plan. this particular case, there are two cases, one involving six states that sued and then another case that was brought by two students. and i believe it s the students specifically that we are now getting their case and their reaction. before we have that, we re having julia read over the decision. as soon as she s ready, guys, let me know, and we will go to her. as we sort of get ready for her report, kenji, what do you she s ready. julia, take it away. what can you tell us? reporter: so in the first case, those borrowers who challenged the biden administration, the court court said they don t have standing. but now we are getting the second piece of this, where the court has said the biden administration plan to forgive federal student loans does not hold up. they are blocking that. they re agreeing with the lower court that that was not within
but, you could have heard a pin drop in that room, john, cheering as i said, the nearly hour of reading. a witness to history, once again, thank you for sharing those moments with. us with us now, cnn s laura coats and van jones. and with me here, kenji he is the chief justice earl warned professor of constitutional law at nyu law school. justice warren wrote the unanimous opinion in brown versus board of education. then i just want to start with you, obviously, an historic day. what s your reaction to the i was born in 1968, the year
administrative stave, reducing the power of the executive branch in a way that is really incredible. kenji, the biden administration argued that they did have this emergency power authority. and there was precedent after 9/11, and in fact, congress had reaffirmed the heroes act, expanded it in 2003. congress, the legislature also made it permanent in 2007. so i m just i m not understanding why it didn t apply here? right, and so the court as i scan the opinion is taking a very literalist, you know, vision of the heroes act. so the heroes act in 2003 says uses the words waive or modify, and cancellation is seen to go beyond sort of waive or modify, right, in the court s view of canceling this debt. i think it s the kind of bridge too far kind of argument. i want to say a couple of things on that. the solicitor general coming in for the government did an amazing job during argument in
unrelated to this case. that has nothing to do with speech. that actually did have to do with the color of the person s skin. this is something that s very different. it s limited to speech. that s why it s a free speech case. it s limited to people who are bringing a message. and again, laurie smith is happy to give a whole range of messages for same-sex attracted individuals. she s not happy to do messages that celebrate a particular messages that she disagrees with on the basis of her religion. carrie severino, i do appreciate your perspective on all of this. i think it s important to get all the different perspectives. i have some people here who i know want to respond as well. thank you so much for joining us i saw you reacting alongside me, kenji, what did you make of that argument she just put forward. i was really puzzled by her statement that obergefell is consistent with this because alito during oral argument tried to make that claim but was overridden by gorsuch in this