>> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: >> you never discriminate. you want everyone, the young, the old, the soft, the strong. but cancer, we're fighting you can immunotherapies and genetic testing, with laughter, with strength, because every one of us is doing one thing only: making cancer history. >> you were born with two stories. one you write every day, and one you inherited that's written in your d.n.a. 23andme.com is a genetic service that provides personalized reports about traits, health and ancestry. learn more at www.23andme.com. >> lincoln financial-- committed to helping you take charge of your financial future. >> and by the alfred p. sloan foundation. supporting science, technology, and improved economic performance and financial literacy in the 21st century. >> supported by the rockefeller foundation. promoting the well-being of humanity around the world by building resilience and inclusive economies. more at rockefellerfoundation.org >> carnegie corporation of new york. supporting innovations in education, democratic engagement, and the advancement of international peace and security. at carnegie.org. >> and with the ongoing support of these institutions: and individuals. >> this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. >> sreenivasan: the supreme court weighed in on two politically-charged cases today. the justices, in a four to four tie, effectively killed president obama's executive actions on immigration. his program would have deferred deportation for more than four million undocumented immigrants, and allowed them to work legally in the u.s. president obama reacted to the court's decision at the white house this morning. >> for more than two decades now our immigration system, everybody acknowledges, has been broken. and the fact that the supreme court was not able to issue a decision today doesn't just set this system back even further, it takes us further from the country we aspire to be. this is part of the consequence of the republican failures so far to give a fair hearing to mr. merrick garland, my nominee to the supreme court. >> sreenivasan: and in another major decision, the justices ruled it is constitutional for universities-- in this case the university of texas-- to consider race in admissions. we'll take a closer look at today's supreme court rulings right after this news summary. >> woodruff: another police officer in baltimore has been found not guilty in the 2015 death of a 25-year-old black man, freddie gray. caesar goodson was driving the police van in which gray suffered a broken neck while in custody. goodson faced the most serious charges of all the officers involved. he was acquitted on all counts, including second-degree murder. dozens of protesters gathered outside the courthouse in baltimore today to voice their frustrations. >> we are human beings we deserve-- we deserve to have the right to walk in our communities, and ride in our communities and be safe by people we pay and send to serve and protect us. who the hell are they serving? and who the hell are they protecting? cause it damn sure ain't freddie gray. >> woodruff: six police officers have been charged in the case. but only goodson was accused of committing murder. the first trial ended in a hung jury. the second officer was acquitted of all charges. in the presidential campaign, republican donald trump faced tough questions today regarding past claims he's made about democrat hillary clinton's emails. yesterday, trump said: "her server was easily hacked by foreign governments, perhaps even by her financial backers in communist china. putting all of america and our citizens in danger, great danger." but today, he took a step back when pressed by lester holt of nbc news. >> you also made the claim that her e-mail, personal e-mail server, had been hacked, probably by foreign governments, suggesting that-- >> well, you don't know that. >> as president-- >> well first of all, she shouldn't have had a personal server, okay? she shouldn't have had it. it's illegal. what she did is illegal. now she might not be judging that way because, you know, we-- we have a rigged system. but what she did is illegal. she shouldn't have had a personal server-- >> but is there any evidence that it was hacked other than routine fishing? >> i think i read that. >> and i heard it and somebody-- >> where? >> --that also gave me that information. i will report back to you. >> woodruff: clinton's campaign has maintained there's no evidence hackers penetrated her private email server. >> sreenivasan: in china, a powerful tornado has killed at least 78 people, and leveled a large number of buildings. some 500 people were injured. it hit a densely populated area near the city of yancheng, about 500 miles south of beijing. the twister overturned cars. roads were blocked with trees, downed power lines and other debris. there were reports of winds up to about 80 miles per hour in some parts. >> woodruff: it was a historic day for colombia as the government signed a ceasefire with leftist farc rebels, closing a half-century-long chapter of bloodshed. at a ceremony in havana, cuba, the colombian president and the leader of the farc formally approved the agreement to settle longstanding obstacles to peace, including the farc's disarmament. that now clears the way for a final peace deal, which negotiators hope to clinch by july 20. >> sreenivasan: back in this country, the federal government now says filtered tap water is safe for everyone in flint, michigan. the announcement lifts a recommendation that pregnant women, nursing mothers, and children under six only drink bottled water to avoid lead exposure. the city's drinking water became contaminated when lead from old pipes leached into homes and businesses, triggering a public health emergency. volkswagen will pay over $10 billion to settle claims tied to its diesel emissions-cheating scandal. it was widely reported the majority of the money will compensate owners of nearly 500,000 vehicles programmed to cheat on emissions tests. the rest will penalize government agencies and fund pollution offset projects. the final terms of the settlement will be released tuesday. stocks surged on wall street today as traders eagerly awaited the outcome of today's british referendum on whether to remain in the european union. the dow jones industrial average gained 230 points to close at 18,011. the nasdaq rose more than 76 points, and the s&p 500 added nearly 28. new data out today from the u.s. census bureau shows asians continue to be the fastest- growing racial group in the u.s. the asian population rose 3.4% over the past year. while the white population, including those who chose white along with another race, showed the slowest growth: up just one half of a percent. there are 21 million asians in the u.s. their population has steadily surged since 2000, largely due to international migration. and after decades of debate, a los angeles jury has ruled led zeppelin did not steal the opening riff of their classic song, "stairway to heaven." the rock band was accused of copying the chords from a song by the american band spirit. the two groups played together in 1970, a year before "stairway to heaven's" release. here's led zeppelin's iconic guitar opening, as heard in this 1973 performance. ♪ ♪ and here are the chords in question from the band spirit's song "taurus," so you can judge for yourself. ♪ ♪ the jury ruled the chords of the two songs were "not intrinsically similar." still to come on the newshour: big supreme court decisions on immigration and affirmative action. what will happen if britain leaves the european union. house democrats sit-in for more than 24-hours to push gun control legislation, and much more. >> woodruff: we return to the big day at the supreme court: a split on immigration puts millions in limbo. and justices uphold affirmative action. we dig into both cases now with newshour regular marcia coyle, chief washington correspondent of the "national law journal." marcia. >> judy. >> woodruff: we need you here on days like this, especially on days like this. let's talk about the affirmative action case first. what was it that the university of texas case was about? >> well, actually this was the second time the supreme court had looked at how the university of texas uses race as a factor in its admissions policy. back in 2013, the case came to the supreme court by abigail fisher, a student who was denied admission to the university in 2008. and she claimed that the use of race as factor was why she was denied admission and that it violated the constitution. the supreme court in 2013, led by justice kennedy, a 7-1 court, sent it back to the lower federal court saying you gave too much deference to the university's explanation. you have to give the tougher scrutiny we have under the constitution, and the university has to show there are no workable race-neutral alternatives. well, that lower federal appellate court held hearings, briefings, upheld the plan again. it came back to the supreme court. abigail fisher brought it back with a conservative organization that had backed her from the beginning. and the supreme court today in a surprising 4-3 decision upheld the university's use of race as justice kennedy said, factor of factor of a factor. >> woodruff: why do you say surprising? >> he had never voted to uphold an affirmative action plan, although he had written and spoken about the importance of diversity in higher education. so he did believe that it was an important, compelling interest to have a diverse student body. >> woodruff: there were some really strong opinions voiced here. justice alito wrote this is affirmative action gone wild? >> gone berserk, that's what he said. he actually read a summary of his very long dissent. his dissent was 51 pages. he read a summary from the bench for 17 minutes, almost three times longer than justice kennedy's summary of his opinion. he took issue with most of the points justice kennedy made. by the way, justice kennedy said that this plan is really sort of one of a kind for the university of texas. under texas state law, the university is required to admit students in the top 10% of their high school classes, and that has accounted for significant diversity, but the university felt that the 25% places in the school that the 10% did not cover did not really create diversity in the classroom. so that's why it used race. justice kennedy said that the 10% plan was really a blunt tool, that it just admitted students on the basis of class rank, and the other 25% were admitted under a holistic view, that means many other things were considered. so justice alito felt that this plan discriminated against asian americans, and he felt that the university had not provided the kind of evidence that it was required to provide to show that it had... that it needed race to achieve the type of diversity it wanted in the classroom. >> woodruff: let me quickly move you to the other big decision the court handed down on president obama's immigration executive orders. the justices were asked to rule on the legality of that. tell us about how they came down? >> well, this was plan that was announced in 2014 by the administration. and it did two things. it would delay temporarily the deportation of parents, undocumented parents of children who were american citizens and legal permanent residents, and also it expanded a 2012 program that delayed the deportation of what we have come to call the dreamers, children who came to america with undocumented parents. texas and 26 other republican-led states challenged that program in the lower federal court in texas. it claimed that the president had exceeded his authority under federal immigration laws. a federal district court temporarily entered an injunction the halt it. a federal appellate court affirmed that injunction. so it was the united states that came to the u.s. supreme court to try to get that injunction lifted. also to confirm that the president had this authority. well, the court did split 4-4 today, and a what that means is basically that the injunction that is halting the program remains in effect. the case goes back to the lower federal district court for a trial on the merits. the court's 4-4 decision here only affirms the judgment of the lower court on the preliminary injunction. it was not a decision on the merit of the claims that texas and the 25 other states made. >> woodruff: so what can be read into this very brief statement the court made? >> nothing. as i said, it's not a decision on the merits. it's in the a precedent going forward that other courts can look to. the case may come back to the supreme court at some point once it goes to trial and appeal. the united states also has the option of filing a petition for rehearing in the u.s. supreme court, which the court can hold until there is a ninth justice if it so chooses. >> woodruff: quickly, the presumption is the absence of the late justice scalia clearly had an effect. >> very much, so as well as today there was another 4-4 decision in a case involving indian tribes. important to them and american businesses. >> woodruff: marcia coyle, thanks very much. >> my pleasure, judy. >> woodruff: and now we take a angela maria kelley is with the center for american progress for a time advised the white house on immigration actions. and jon feere, legal policy analyst at the center for immigration studies. welcome to both of you. >> thank you. >> woodruff: angela kelley, let me start with you. your reaction to this one-sentence statement they handed down on this immigration? >> nine paltry words, but boy what a big blow. look, as marcia just said, it's a disappointment, but it's not a decision. and we're not done. we have 11 million people in this country. the average number of years they've been here is 12. so these are not folks that are just stopping by. they're not accidental tourists. they are people who are living here. we can't send them all home, as some presidential candidates might want to happen, because they are hope some the question is what are we going to do about it. i think president's plan is legal and ultimately we will be back in court. i think that will prevail. we do need a ninth justice. it's been 100 days since judge garland is nominated, and he has not yet had his day in court, he hasn't yet had his hearing. >> woodruff: but jon feere, it's true the justices didn't elaborate, but the effect of this is to send this back to the lower court. >> yeah, i think a lot of people are wondering why the court even took it up to begin with because all this has done is delay an inevitable rehearing at the supreme court a year or two from now. so it's unclear how long this is going to take, but in some ways a lot of folks were arguing that perhaps the court should have waited until the lower court actually had a hearing on the merits. so we would have some idea of exactly what issues we were looking at and where perhaps the white house was going to be successful and where they were not. >> woodruff: but they were dealing with 26 some, a large number of states that asked them to rule on this. >> 26 states, but the states themselves requested the supreme court not take the decision and, in fact, they wait until there was hearing at the lower court level. >> woodruff: what does this mean? you started to address this, angela, in your first comment. what does this mean for the individuals who... president obama talked today about people coming out of the shadows. what does it mean for them? >> that's right. their lives remain in limbo. people have already been here for nearly a dozen years on average. we're talking about people who have u.s. citizen children, so clearly they put down roots. most of them work and pay taxes and perhaps never see that refund. they're folks contributing to the economy, as well. i think unfortunately they're stuck in the crosshairs of paralysis in washington, which is in congress and which has unfortunately now spilled to the courts. but i don't see that they're going to all pack up and leave. >> woodruff: what about that, jon feere? should they pack up and leave? >> i don't know if there has been a paralysis necessarily. it's just that the advocates for amnesty and more immigration haven't got what they wanted, and president obama himself knows this policy sun popular. if it were popular, he wouldn't have waited until after the mid-term to announce. this he didn't want to have to have republicans and democrats deal with this as voters were heading to the ballot box. the people have spoken. they denied the marco rubio amnesty bill. they stopped the amnesty back under president bush and the dream act went nowhere. so it's not so much that we're in limbo, it's just that we have an administration, not that different from the previous administration, that isn't committed to enforcing our immigration laws. >> woodruff: so you're saying that, what, that what should happen to these individuals? >> well, under federal law they are supposed to go home. it was noted a moment ago that they're not tourists, but plenty of them came as tourists. they just lied to the state department and lied to the american people and overstayed their vies as some if we have any sense of law in this country, people have to abide by the terms we set forth. >> well, we have a record number of people who have been deported under this president. he has hardly been a softy on illegal immigration. and we have a tremendous buildup at the border so that illegal immigration in the united states is basically at zero. the question is what are we going to do about these folks. i think the president did wait very patiently. the senate did passes a bipartisan bill on immigration reform, and the house failed to act. so it's a question of it's not an amnesty, but i think what we need is an answer. interestingly enough, polls that came out yesterday show that 78% of independents support with the 11 million, not deporting them but giving them path to citizenship. we're talking about just very sensible what are we going to do? what are some common sense solutions? >> woodruff: but in the meantime, the court, we don't have an answer. >> correct. >> woodruff: in the meantime, mr. feere's point is they are here illegally. they are here without documents. >> well, mr. feere should feel comfortable in the fact that immigration deportations are going to continue. that we have a robust border patrol force. but that to me isn't really the answer. look, we have an immigration system that hasn't been updated since 1990. just think about that. so until congress does its job and appoints a ninth justice on the supreme court, passes immigration reform, we're going to have these dysfunctions, not just in the immigration system, but across many sectors of america. clearly we deserve better. >> if you look at actual data, deportation has fallen dramatically over the past five or six years, and not just deportations of non-violent people, but even deportations of criminal aliens has dropped down dramatically over the past five years. what this administration has decided outside deferred action, is they're going to narrow the scope of deportation and virtually you will not face deportation unless you are a violent criminal. in fact, obama's former ice director said the exact thing to the "l.a. times" last year. >> woodruff: let me quote to you part of what president obama said. "it's heartbreaking for the millions of immigrants who have made their lives here, who raised their families here, who hoped for the opportunity to work, to pay taxes, to serve in our military and fully contribute to the country." >> i think the american people are the most generous people on the planet when it comes to immigration. we welcome more people for permanent residency than any other country on the planet by a mile. but our generosity i think is being taken advantage of. americans are starting to sour on the concept of immigration because they see people who are not playing by the rules, who are breaking the laws, who are actually lying to us. cutting in front of lines of people who are playing by the rules, taking the time and the money and the effort to do it the right way. >> woodruff: what about that? >> look, life is messy. uncomeed people don't live in an apartment building all by themselves. so they marry americans. they have citizen children. they work shoulder to shoulder with other people. they go to mosque. they go to church. they go to synagogue with other folks. so the idea that we're going to somehow take them all out and remove them and that that is not going to upset the balance of this country is foolish and scary. here's what we do know: in 2012 when the president announced deferred action for dreamers, there were over 700,000 young people that came forward and got work authorization, pay tax, get better jobs. that's a program that makes sense, not just for those families but for the country. that's the direction i would suggest we go in. >> woodruff: final word. >> until we end illegal immigration and there's an actual commitment from our policy-makers to enforce immigration law, any type of asylum will enforce more illegal immigration. >> woodruff: jon feere, angela kelley and marcia >> sreenivasan: should they stay or should they go? that's the question facing british voters today as they decide their place in europe. special correspondent malcolm brabant has the story from london. >> reporter: the signs went up and doors to polling stations across britain opened for an historic day of voting. it's been a bitter campaign to decide whether britain remains within, or exits the 28 member european union. with the result just hours away, britons were on edge. >> i don't really know what to expect and i think if a result comes in kind of early in the morning, everyone might be asleep still and might wake up to a different future or might wake up to just another day. >> reporter: the most recent polls show the outcome is too close to call, but bookies are putting the odds on a "remain" outcome. whatever the result, the referendum opened a chasm across britain-- stirring nationalist sentiments along the way. and the murder last week of pro- europe british lawmaker jo cox could also factor into the outcome. here at a market in ipswich, the divide is clear. produce vendor ian buxton is voting to leave; he says it's because of immigration. >> you see all the migrants. what they say there's thousands of people waiting to come in. i genuinely think we'll be stronger out there on our own. >> reporter: at a nearby stall, steve singh says a vote to leave would hurt financially. >> business wise it's easier for them to obviously interchange with free europe and shipping and so you know my vote is to stay in. >> reporter: party leaders in britain made their way to the polls but refrained from campaigning outright. another major factor that's perhaps going to play into this referendum result has been the weather. more than a months worth of rain has been dumped on london and the southeast over the past day causing absolute chaos. ben page is the chief executive office of ipsos mori, a major polling firm. >> it's difficult to see a very absolutely certain pattern but it is true that brexit voters are much more determined than remain voters. >> reporter: the british pound did surge ahead today to its highest level this year, over market speculation the country will ultimately vote to stay. the polls closed just over an hour and a half ago. vote counting is under way. we're in for a very long night. the final results should be in around about breakfast time tomorrow. hari? >> sreenivasan: now that the polls have closed, what are you hearing? what's the latest? >> well, normally these sort of events, you have exit polls, but the broadcasters this time decided they wouldn't have one because there was no real model for them. but we have heard that the united kingdom independence party has had its own poll of about 10,000 people, and shortly around the time the polls closed, their leader, nigel ferre, said he thought the remain people had edged it, which seems to be very much like a concession. he says the u.k. is a force to be reckoned with and this independence move. would not be going away. then to actually consolidate what seems to be this concession, there was also a poll that had been carried out during the course of the day by an internet polling company, and they were looking at around about 5,000 voters, tracking them during the course of this referendum, and according to their honor day polling, their outcome is that it's 52% for remain and 48% for those people who want to leave. so the indications are pretty clear. of course, you know, there are maybe sort of as many as 30 or 35 million votes to be counted during the course of the night, and that could change, but these are pretty good indications. so certainly in the remain camp at the moment people are looking pretty confident. >> sreenivasan: when you talk to the people in the last couple days as you were reporting this story out, the undecided, are they aware of the consequences? they were undecided voters even up to the polls today. >> sreenivasan: yes. i think the undecided voters really have been absolutely critical in this, and up until today, the opinion polls, which can't necessarily be trusted, are saying it might have been as many as about 11% of the electorate who were undecided. and last night there was a very interesting debate on one of the british tv channels which had 100 people who were undecided, and it tracked their emotions during the course of the debate as various issues came up. at the end of that debate, what happened was that most of those people who were undecided did vote to remain. and what probably happened is that i think there are lots of people in britain who have been really bewildered by the argument. they're not able to make up their minds at all. and it's a pretty momentous decision to go into a voting booth and to make up your mind because the decision that is made today is completely irrevocable, to leave the european union, there would be no coming back. and for many people, this has been a campaign of loathing and fear, loathing on the part of many of the really vehement breakers, who hate the things the european union stand for, especially the unelected and unaccounted representatives who they believe are dictating to britain and taking away its sovereignty, and the fear element is amongst those people worried particularly about the economy, and the economy has actually driven those people in the remain camp perhaps because the easiest thing to do is to vote for the status quo. people have been very worried about losing their jobs. they've been worried by predictions by fairly major individuals in industry, people like sir richard branson who say it would be a complete mistake to come out of the european union. so not knowing what's going to be on the other side of, this those people who are undecided have gone into the voting booth and decided to opt for the status quo. >> sreenivasan: special correspondent malcolm brabant joining us from london, thank you very much. >> woodruff: stay with us, coming up on the newshour: the loses all americans face when big cities don't have enough housing. and a brief but spectacular take on why the o.j. simpson trial still matters today. but first, it was a rare night and morning in congressional history. democrats staged an all-night sit in, demanding a vote to ban anyone on the no fly list from buying a gun. lisa desjardins begins our coverage. >> reporter: house democrats emerged from the capitol and gave up their 26-hour sit in. they vowed to keep fighting for gun control measures, after the july 4 break. >> when we come back here on july 5, we're going to continue to push, to pull, to stand up, and if necessary, to sit down, or sit in. >> reporter: the scene outside was nearly as raucous as the one that played out yesterday and overnight. as republicans recessed, triggering an automatic shut down of the official house cameras, democrats took to social media to broadcast the back-and-forth on the floor. >> no bill! no vote! no bill! no vote! >> reporter: 10:00 p.m: house speaker paul ryan tried to regain control over democrats' chanting. >> the house will be in order... >> reporter: but order was not coming. the house cameras again went dark. >> the house stands in recess, >> reporter: democrats kept sitting and standing on the floor, until republicans returned to a formal session again at 2:30 a.m. and not just any session-- g.o.p. leaders called for a big vote on a bill that included a billion dollars to fight zika. it passed without debate, and republicans closed out the session until after july 4. speaker ryan, facing this new test, had biting words for democrats today. >> we are not going to allow stunts like this to stop us from carrying out the people's business. why do i call this a stunt? well, because it is one. let's be honest here. >> reporter: why a stunt? ryan pointed out that democrats sent multiple fundraising emails and flyers about the sit-in. he said it wasn't a proud moment for democracy. but democrats point out that eight years ago, then-minority republicans also held the house floor in protest. a key difference? no cell phone video streaming then. as the house closed with no action, there was a symbolic victory on the senate side. a bipartisan plan from susan collins of maine would ban gun purchases from those on the terror watch list. it survived a procedural vote, getting support from 52 senators. the issue for the collins plan? it will likely need 60 votes, which it doesn't have, to make it out of the senate. for the pbs newshour, i'm lisa desjardins. >> woodruff: joining me now from capitol hill is one of the democrats who helped organize the sit-in in the house, congressman david cicilline of rhode island. congressman, welcome to the program. first of all, did you get any sleep at all last night? >> i did not. i haven't pulled an all-nighter since college, so after this show i'm going to go home and go to bed. >> woodruff: why did democrats make what was if not an unprecedented move, as we just heard, close to unprecedented? >> i think it was unprecedented. we have been incredibly frustrated at the republican house leadership's refusal to bring to the floor two very common sense gun safety proposals, one to keep a suspected terrorist who are on the watch list, to prevent them from buying a gun, and universal background checks to make sure that everyone who purchases guns has a background check. and these with -- are two common sense proposals the republican leadership in the house has refused to bring these bills to the floor. we've been incredibly frustrated. we thought it was important to try something new to bring attention to this issue, to demand that the republicans bring these bills to the floor for a vote, to bring the attention of our country to this issue. we just saw an event, the worst mass shooting in the history of the united states in orlando, florida, 49 people slaughtered by an assault weapon, 52 people injured. we seem to see this kind of carnage on a regular basis. and so far the republicans have been unwilling to bring a single bill to the floor that would respond to it. we felt this was really important to try something different, the demand that they move forward on these. this was the beginning of what will be a protracted effort to really encourage and convince and persuade and ultimately force our republican colleagues to address this issue and make our community safer. >> woodruff: but if you don't have the numbers, how do you do that? i heard speaker ryan today say it actually did come up for a vote in committee, it just didn't pass out of committee in order to get to the floor. >> well, both of the proposals, the proposal the make sure terrorists can't buy a gun and to make sure there are universal background checks, supported broadly by the american people, 85% and 90%, that includes republicans and democrats and independents. so the american people support this. and what was most agreed to fight about last night is we had a huge crowd outside the capitol that was growing throughout the night. ordinary americans that had come to washington, to the capitol grounds to support our effort. this will require the outside engage of folks all across this country to demand that congress do what they need to be done to keep them safe. this is one of the issues where the american people are with us. we have to keep them engaged and the finally convince republicans that they have a responsibility to move forward and keep individuals who are on the terrorist watch list from buying a gun, make sure that all gun sales are subject to background checks, and really continue to engage with people all across this country to demand that leaders in the republican party bring these bills to the floor for a vote. >> woodruff: but do you really think you'll be able to do that? for example, are there any republicans who have come to you or any of your democratic colleagues and said, i'm changing my mind? >> well, i think there are republicans who heard from their constituents last night, and i think as they go home for break, imagine in the middle of this argument we're asking them, let's debate these bills. tell us why you oppose them, tell us why you think people on the terrorist watch list should be able to buy a gun. tell us why you don't think there should be universal background checks, they wouldn't come to the floor and debate. of course, there is no good argument against either bill, but what they did is at 2:30 a.m., in the dark of night, while america slept, they used a procedural maneuver to adjourn. they're going to have to go home. they're home now. they'll hear from their constituents who i expect will say, you need the pass common sense gun safety legislation that when we come back on july 5th and we resume our efforts, they will have heard from their constituents and look, this is going to be a long struggle, but i am confident that the end of this, we will persuade our colleagues to do what's right for the american people and prevent people on the terrorist watch list from buying a gun, make sure we have universal background checks. both things which can really make our community safer and keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them. >> woodruff: what's your reaction to speaker ryan's comment that this is just a stunt designed to get democrats in front of the tv cameras? >> despite the fact that speaker ryan turned off the camera, shut off our microphones, we're not going to be slensd. we were able to use social media the make sure the american people could see this debate despite the fact that republicans didn't want them to see it. but look, i think if you speak to any of the family members who lost loved ones in orlando, any of the parents of the children slain in sandy hook or san bernardino or aurora, there's nothing that's a stunt about this. this is about gun violence, which is an epidemic in this country, which is ripping families apart, which is a serious public health crisis in this country. we have a responsibility the fight hard to enact the paroles that will reduce gun violence in this country. we'll use every tool we have to continue to press hard to force the republicans to take up these issues. the american people are demanding it. they expect us to do something, and i can assure you for the families and victims of gun violence in this country, they don't think this is a stunt. they were pleased that we were in this fight trying to ensure their voices were heard in the congress of the united states. >> woodruff: do you expect more sit-ins? >> i expect we'll do lots more to force the republicans the finally meet their responsibility and enact responsible gun safety legislation. >> woodruff: representative david cicilline of rhode island who spent much of last night literally sitting on the house floor. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> woodruff: and we do hope to hear from republican lawmakers in the coming days. >> sreenivasan: the cost of buying or renting a home in key american cities keeps on rising. a new study out finds more than 40 million households are spending a third of their income on rent. and the housing shortage in cities like new york, washington and san francisco may be costing more than 100 million american workers thousands of dollars in lost wages. special correspondent duarte geraldino explains why as part of our weekly series on "making sense" of financial news. >> reporter: you can hear so much in this old building; every sort of step. >> yeah, it's like every creak. >> reporter: brian hanlon has multiple graduate degrees, a steady job and a middle-class income. >> this probably hasn't been renovated since the eisenhower administration. >> reporter: yet at 34 years old, he's the subtenant of a woman lucky enough to have a rent-controlled apartment. but hanlon's time is running out. >> i've been in this room for about four and a half years. >> reporter: four and a half years. he worries the owner of his apartment house will offer the actual leaseholder a lot of money to move, meaning hanlon will have to pay a lot more to live in this mission district neighborhood. >> well so market rate for this place, i'm guessing it's probably about $5,000 a month. >> reporter: $5000 a month? >> a three-bedroom in the mission? sure. >> reporter: the situation is forcing a growing number of people-- low, medium and high- income workers-- into ever tighter living conditions. and some, with no income, out of their homes altogether. >> i got here because i got nowhere to go. >> reporter: claudia rocha has lived on this sidewalk since losing her assembly line job last year. and it was on this rapidly gentrifying but still gritty street that she says she almost lost her life. >> reporter: how tall were the flames? >> oh, it was big, it was like this building. it took those windows. >> reporter: a huge fire started by someone throwing gasoline on her tent at 3:00 a.m., with her inside. >> and i just see the fire, boom like a devil can touch me. i was panic and i get up and i run with no shoes nothing. everything inside get in fire. it's ugly, it's really ugly. >> reporter: helping rocha or hanlon find a stable place to live is complicated by a long list of roadblocks faced by developers who want to construct high-density homes. >> i run grow s.f. >> reporter: housing activist laura clark founded a group called grow san francisco to push for fewer restrictions, which even she admits were designed with good intention. >> it comes historically from a very good place. originally there was a lot of really good work done to say we shouldn't be blasting highways through our city, we really need to take an environmental perspective about a lot of the urban rejuvenation we were doing. and then it kind of went to kind of a toxic place. >> reporter: one example: >> shadow studies. >> reporter: shadow studies? >> yes. where we research where all the shadows are going to fall. >> reporter: it was hard to believe shadows, and other seemingly minor factors, could actually prevent the construction of new housing in a city that by some estimates needs tens if not hundreds of thousands more homes. so we tracked down jeff buckley at san francisco city hall. he's the mayor's senior housing advisor. >> as part of a voter mandate which was established in the eighties, there are some public open spaces that cannot have shadows in them and others where they have a shadow budget. >> reporter: a shadow budget? >> correct. which is a small amount of shadow that is allowed in those areas during certain times. >> reporter: shadows, noise, environmental concerns. these are issues community groups and even individuals use to block new construction, often targeting market-rate, or luxury, housing. but san francisco is trying to cut the red tape and has an ambitious goal of adding 30,000 new housing units by 2020, half of them subsidized. there are a lot of critics who say, "you should just be focused on total supply and not necessarily on affordability." >> i think that works well in an economist think-tank but in the reality of politics and the policy making in an urban environment, you need to figure out, not just a total unit amount but, how to make those units affordable for people who live here in the city. >> reporter: but as economists point out, more total housing would lower rents for everyone. >> one of the most progressive policies that this progressive city could adopt would be to build more housing. >> reporter: enrico moretti is an economist at u. c. berkeley, where he studies the relationship between housing and employment. >> i think this is a perfect example of how broken the planning process is in san francisco. there's a developer who would like to add 345 units on the top of walgreen and burger king there. >> reporter: yet protesters have blocked the mission street project for years. in part, yes, because of the shadows it would cast. the same goes for a 250-unit project on market street, which would replace this low rise >> the net result is that very few housing units get built in san francisco relative to the demand. >> reporter: and that, says moretti, has far reaching effects. he and colleagues at the university of chicago took a mathematical model, normally used to study the economic effects of immigration restrictions between countries, and applied it within the united states. crunching decades worth of data from 220 u.s. metro areas, they found five american cities did not contribute as much to us economic growth as they would have, if they'd had more housing. according to the research, the housing crunch in the bay area and in new york, boston and washington is not just stressing local renters but also shrinking the incomes of every american worker-- some 100 million people. >> there's a loss for the entire nation. >> reporter: we met moretti at the san francisco federal reserve where he's a fellow. he says restrictive land-use policies are keeping people out of cities like san francisco. >> reporter: how much money would the average american worker actually earn if these policies weren't in place in these five cities? >> we estimate about $5,000 in additional earnings for the average worker. >> reporter: $5,000 in lost wages, $500 billion in missed g.d.p. >> yes, if these five american cities were to lower the level of land use regulation to the level of the median american city, we would see increased economic growth, increased g.d.p., and higher wages, not just in those cities but across the country. >> reporter: according to morretti, these five cities are places where specialized workers cluster, making each member more productive and therefore better paid. if they loosened development restrictions so more homes could be built, rents would fall, making it easier for newcomers with high earning potential to break into the club. >> more people would relocate from different parts of the country to take advantage of this high productivity and these high wages. this would benefit those who move because they have better paying jobs. >> reporter: it would also benefit those who stay behind. >> because there will be more available jobs in those communities than there is now. >> but as it stands, that is not happening and even the most highly educated workers in cities like san francisco are concerned about the roof over their heads. >> i have a one bedroom apartment, and you know if you want to have a family or something that's kind of limiting. >> reporter: kyle huey is a highly paid software engineer who feels stuck in his small rent-regulated apartment. >> simply to rent my current place would cost so much more money now that trading up to a better place seems, you know, even more daunting. >> everybody talks poorly about the techies. the techies are also living with roommates or in converted living rooms. yeah, it's kind of ridiculous, even the people who you want to hate who are making hundreds and thousands of dollars, are struggling to find housing in this city. it's a real crisis. >> reporter: so kyle huey can't trade up. brian hanlon may be pushed out. >> there's a real chance that i would just leave the bay area. >> reporter: and millions of american workers may be taking a $5,000 hit they are not even aware of. in san francisco, duarte geraldino, for the pbs newshour. >> woodruff: and now to another in our "brief but spectacular" series, where we ask interesting people to describe their passions. o.j. simpson has been the subject of several programs this year, including an espn documentary, an fx series, and a play, "watching o.j." by writer david mcmillan. here, he explains why the 20- year-old verdict still matters today. >> i remember the o.j. simpson trial very vividly. i will never forget the day that the verdict was announced because i was hanging out with my friend, a white guy chris brown. we saw these two black friends of ours who were celebrating and chris was like, "how can you guys be happy that o.j. was acquitted." and one of the black girls said, "oh he didn't kill that white ( bleep ). i will never forget that and it was a moment where he realized, he didn't know the people that he went to school with. i decided to write a play about not the trial itself but people watching the trial and their reactions to it. unfortunately, the play has become even more timely in the last couple of years. it's speaks to where we are in our present moment. race is a topic that is getting a lot of attention these days but at the same time people are afraid to start that conversation and how to start that conversation. "watching o.j" takes place on the day that the o.j. simpson verdict was announced. when these types of moments happen, suddenly you realize maybe i don't know my coworker or my friend as well as i thought i did. i tried to capture as many different points of view as i could. in one scene you have two characters, jamal and allison, one black one white. one is from brentwood, one from the hood. they can't possibly believe that the other person thinks that they think. >> please tell me you think he's guilty? >> why does my opinion matter? >> i suppose it doesn't. >> not in the grand scheme but it's a good litmus test. >> for what? >> to determine whether or not you're a sane rational human being? >> another character derek, who's asian american, shares his perspective on the trial based on his parents, who are korean american, and how they were affected by the l.a. riots. part of me wants him to get acquitted because i don't want to see a repeat of what happened here three years ago. and if sparing my parents the heartache of seeing their store destroyed again means letting a guilty man go free, i'm willing to live with that. for a lot of african americans they saw the trial not as an indictment of o.j. simpson but really as an indictment of the l.a.p.d. one of the other characters in the play, kim, she has two sons. one who's in school and the other who's in prison. and she's looking at this trial not caring whether or not o.j. did it, she just wants a win. that wouldn't just be a win for him, that'd be a win for all of us. for all the black men that's been railroaded by the system. and for all their mothers who've had to stand by and watch. for once, we'll finally get a taste of what justice feels like. and for once we can and for once we can finally say, yes, god dammit, we got one you [bleeped]. yeah, we got one. >> race is something that we will always have to deal with as a country. our country was founded on de jure segregation, and racism, and slavery. and so those issues are part of the fabric whether we like it or not. i thought the verdict and what it brought out in people-- again not the trial itself but what it brought out in people-- was a moment. a moment where america got to see itself reflected back to itself. we see the country that we are as opposed to the country that we think we are. my name is david mcmillan, and this is my brief but spectacular take on the o.j. simpson verdict and why it still matters today. >> woodruff: you can find more episodes of our brief but spectacular series at pbs.org/newshour/brief. on the newshour online right now, how do u.s. officials regard the u.k. "brexit" vote? margaret warner takes a closer look. plus, self-driving cars could improve public safety by limiting fatalities in traffic accidents. but a new study spotlights a moral quandary in how we choose to program those cars. all that and more is on our web site, pbs.org/newshour. >> sreenivasan: tune in later tonight for charlie rose. the former vice chairman of the chief of staff james winfield on the fight against isis and extremism. that's the "newshour" for tonight. >> woodruff: and i'm judy woodruff. join us online, and again here tomorrow evening. for all of us at the pbs newshour, thank you and good night. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: >> you were born with two stories. one you write every day, and one you inherited that's written in your d.n.a. 23andme.com is a genetic service that provides personalized reports about traits, health and ancestry. learn more at www.23andme.com. >> lincoln financial-- committed to helping you take charge of your financial future. >> the lemelson foundation. committed to improving lives through invention. in the u.s. and developing countries. on the web at lemelson.org. >> and with the ongoing support of these institutions >> this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. captioning sponsored by newshour productions, llc captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org this is "national business report" with tyler mathisen and sue herera. decision day. 120ks close in on their 2016 highs as investors bet that voters in the united kingdom will decide to remain in the european union. surprise diagnosis. health officials say astrazeneca one regarded at the best to protect kids from the virus doesn't work. troubling results. one of the most popular small suvs performed the worst in the latest crash tests. those stories and more tonight on "national business report" for thursday, june 23rd. good evening. i'm sharon epperson in tonight for sue herera. >> and i'm tyler mathisen from 30 rock in new york city. stocksal