LISA DESJARDINS: We have so many other decisions to talk about.

I want to talk about the student loans decision, and letús look at quite a bit more of the other decisions.

I want to list them for our viewers so they can understand gay rights.

The court ruled that some businesses can refuse to work for same sex couples and potentially other groups of people.

Student loans, as you mentioned, the court blocked President Bidenús loan forgiveness plan.

Election law, earlier this week, the Court ruled against the controversial independent state legislature theory, rejecting a Republican-led attempt to have more power over federal elections.

And the court agreed that Alabama and Louisiana each need to add at least one more minority district.

So, the question here on all of this is, as Ariane said last, you thought affirmative action was this kind of most impactful case.

Does anyone think student loans might be the most impactful case?

SEUNG MIN KIM: It is the most direct challenge to President Biden himself, which is why I think weúre taking a particular interest in it, because there are so many implications for him on a policy level and politically.

I mean, remember the timing that they rolled out the student loan relief plan.

It was a couple of months before the midterms.

It was certainly a way to galvanize young voters who have been a little -- a bit more lackadaisical on President Biden than perhaps other demographics in the Democratic Party.

And I recall that program came out around the same or that initiative came around the same time that this administration announced it was forgiving marijuana penalties for many offenders.

And that was really seen as a way to get young voters excited.

And I have to tell you, I do a lot of voter interviews for A.P.

polls that we have.

And when I talk to voters about name something that Biden has done that you really like, itús not the infrastructure law, itús not the Inflation Reduction act.

It is, he is going to forgive my student loans.

This matters so much to voters, which is why they have to keep showing like they did today, that theyúre continuing to fight.

Theyúre finding other ways to at least make the burden of payments a little bit easier, that theyúre still going to keep on fighting legally for full relief like they did today.

But, again, with the makeup of this court, that is going to be a very unlikely option.

EUGENE DANIELS: Yes.

And, I mean, voters of color also, right?

Because voters of color, black and brown folks, they are disproportionately impacted by high student loan payments, the need to take out more student loans when theyúre going to college.

And so that is something they have to deal with.

You talk to Democrats across the country, theyúre already a little bit worried about the lukewarmness, not just from young voters, but from voters of color.

Because when you talk to them, the voters say, what have you done for me lately, right?

The White House has talked about all of these things theyúve done over two and a half years, but voters want to know, what have you done for me now?

And so, politically, this is going to be something this White House and this campaign is going to have to deal with head on.

And I was in the briefing room today when Secretary Cardona kept saying, weúre fighting, weúre fighting, weúre fighting, like 800 times, but the thing is -- LISA DESJARDINS: But he said, send your payments then.

EUGENE DANIELS: Exactly, send your payments, you owe us money, right?

Like that doesnút really sell that well.

And so as they move through this kind of regulatory process thatús going to take a long time to get to the end result they want, like you said, the Supreme Court may knock that down, too.

So, I was just as I was walking in here talking to an advocate, and so theyúre, like, cautiously optimistic.

Theyúre worried about the timing, but they say, at the end of the day, it is good to see President Biden doing something.

Theyúre always a little worried that this institutionalist will kind of sit back and not do, exactly.

LISA DESJARDINS: Another mammoth ruling that we had, of course, is on same sex marriage, or at least thatús what the technicalities of the ruling are about.

This idea in a Colorado case that a woman with a graphic design firm does not have to design graphics for same sex weddings, the court ruled out of First Amendment free speech clause.

John, Iúm curious, do we know how wide this ruling could be?

Could this affect is this particular to just same sex marriage?

Is it much larger than that?

Do we know?

JOHN YANG: It could go wider.

It could - - I mean, even in the oral arguments, they were asking about where do you draw the line, coming up with hypotheticals asking about a black Santa at a mall or someone who believes that the Bible teaches you that races shouldnút be mixed.

What happens if a mixed race couple comes in?

But the other thing that some LGBTQ-plus advocates told me this afternoon is that itús so narrow.

It has to be something that has a creative or expression that they think they may be okay.

But I wonder if businesses arenút going to try to redefine themselves, like can a chef say that cooking a meal, Iúm expressing myself, this is me.

ARIANE DE VOGUE: Thatús exactly what Elena Kagan brought up in oral arguments.

And they can say that this is narrow, but the baker believes heús an artist.

The jewelry maker, is that an artist?

What about the limo driver?

And Elena Kagan ticked through all this at oral arguments, really pressing them and sort of saying, where do you draw the line with this opinion?

So, they may say itús narrow, and they did all day long, but thereús a way where you could see a lot more challenges, a lot more people trying to sort of define what they did or do on the basis of speech, and that could open up a box.

JOHN YANG: And the other point about this decision is something that Justice Sonia Sotomayor said in her said in her dissent is this is the first time the Supreme Court has said that a business has a right not to serve a protected class.

ARIANE DE VOGUE: The sort of other interesting thing about this, Justice Neil Gorsuch, right, three years ago, he was a hero to LGBTQ rights.

He wrote this opinion.

He joined the liberals, and it was an opinion that bolstered the rights of workers, and everybody was surprised.

So, today, he becomes the villain.

In his opinion, though, you donút see a lot of language about the LGBT community.

He weds the entire thing on speech.

He says this is just about speech.

And thatús where you again see the divide on this court, because that is not how the other side sees it.

LISA DESJARDINS: Moving along our buffet of history that weúve been served up by the Supreme Court this week, I want to talk about congressional maps.

And, first, the state legislatures, the Republican-led, will not be able to sort of have increased power over election law then, and also Alabama, Louisiana could see changes, likely weúll see changes in their maps.

Seung Min, you and I were texting about this.

My sources, they were into these cases.

Why does this matter?

SEUNG MIN KIM: Well, it matters first of all, that it was just interesting because it was surprising.

It kind of went against what you expected a conservative majority of the Supreme Court to do.

But itús really fascinating in terms of the 2024 elections.

Youúre looking at the maps in Alabama and Louisiana.

So, in Louisiana, there are six Congressional districts.

Five are majority wide, even though the population of Louisiana, I believe, is one-third African-American.

A similar breakdown in Alabama, where you have seven congressional districts, a quarter of the population is African-American, but yet six are majority white.

So, the Supreme Court tells them, no, you have to redraw the maps to make it more fair.

In theory, this could add one more majority black districts.

We know black voters are very pro-Democratic, lean more towards the Democratic Party.

So, normally, Iúm a Senate gal, not usually interested in the House.

In this narrow majority, in Kevin McCarthyús House, where he controls just a five-seat majority, every seat is going to matter.

So, if you can pick up a seat in Alabama or Louisiana, where Democrats were not expecting, this could be a very, very interesting House election.

LISA DESJARDINS: And this could be forever seats too?

SEUNG MIN KIM: Exactly.

LISA DESJARDINS: 2024 of it all, Eugene.

Seung Min was talking earlier about the Biden administration or President Biden not tackling reform to the court.

But 2024, the Supreme Court itself, how much do you think an issue that could be?

How much is the Biden White House going to try and sell the idea that we have got to keep ready to replace justices?

EUGENE DANIELS: Yes, I think that itús going to be central, right?

Because to them, and they did it in 2022, right, they say, give us senators who will let us get around the filibuster, give us the House so we can do what we promised.

But voters are getting sick of that, right?

Like, voters are like, we went to the polls.

We gave you the White House, the Senate and the House, they donút care about arcane rules of the Senate, how things work in the House, they want to see results.

And so this administration and this campaign will have to figure out how to say to voters, no, this is actually what weúre going to do.

We promise it.

And that aspect that you could have these congressional districts, where they could have that, getting voters to the polls based off of abortion, based off of student loans, based off of all these things that this administration has been saying they want to do and is very popular with the American people, Democrats arenút always very good at that, getting people angry, it seems like theyúre changing that up.

Thereús an opportunity for them, but they have to do it right.

LISA DESJARDINS: I am trying to fit a lot into a very few pages left, but I want to, in our last minutes, ask each of you briefly to say, how consequential do you think this Supreme Court term was, John?

JOHN YANG: They have redefined and reshaped the contours of society in really big ways.

I mean, not just the abortion ruling, the affirmative action.

There are just so many places they have made such a huge impact on people.

ARIANE DE VOGUE: Second Amendment, religious liberty, got another second Amendment case.

I think one of the most interesting thing, having covered so many nomination hearings when Donald Trump really moved to change the face of the courts and a lot of people werenút paying a ton of attention during these nomination hearings.

Well, guess what?

Now youúre really seeing that this is Donald Trumpús most lasting legacy.

EUGENE DANIELS: Big, because, I mean, theyúre also chipping away at the administrative state, right?

They are doing things where the executive actions donút hold as much teeth.

And so how do White Houses in the future deal with that?

LISA DESJARDINS: Last word to you.

SEUNG MIN KIM: Right.

And itús just so many like tangible, practical impacts.

You have college admissions offices rushing to revise their procedures or figure out the impact, but yet all the political consequences of all these rulings, really interesting to watch for all of us.

LISA DESJARDINS: Among the consequences, I suspect, is exhaustion for Supreme Court reporters.

We are very grateful to both of you and to everyone here for your time.

And we have to leave it there for now.

Thank you to everyone on the panel for joining us.

I hope you all are having some time offs soon.

I know some of you are.

And thank you to all of you at home for joining us as well.