US supreme court rules against student debt relief plan after striking down law protecting LGBTQ+ rights – live

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.

“,”elementId”:”ee8116fd-6d3e-4000-aa35-d909fbc572b0″},{“_type”:”model.dotcomrendering.pageElements.TextBlockElement”,”html”:”

Here’s House speaker Kevin McCarthy:

“,”elementId”:”efc9c78b-d0f2-49ed-82eb-902844edd85a”},{“_type”:”model.dotcomrendering.pageElements.TweetBlockElement”,”html”:”

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.

This builds on the Fiscal Responsibility Act’s end to the payment pause. The President must follow the law.

— Kevin McCarthy (@SpeakerMcCarthy) June 30, 2023

n”,”url”:”https://twitter.com/SpeakerMcCarthy/status/1674793965886009348″,”id”:”1674793965886009348″,”hasMedia”:false,”role”:”inline”,”isThirdPartyTracking”:false,”source”:”Twitter”,”elementId”:”71fba999-b4c4-4836-8b97-ac1f2849e87c”},{“_type”:”model.dotcomrendering.pageElements.TextBlockElement”,”html”:”

Or former vice-president and current presidential candidate Mike Pence, who said:

“,”elementId”:”535f7645-1f16-40ce-87dd-d878236f40a3″},{“_type”:”model.dotcomrendering.pageElements.BlockquoteBlockElement”,”html”:”

n

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.

n

“,”elementId”:”354a8d41-3aa1-4507-8215-6d5eb674c5df”},{“_type”:”model.dotcomrendering.pageElements.TextBlockElement”,”html”:”

And Nikki Haley, once Donald Trump’s United Nations ambassador, now a competitor for the GOP’s presidential nomination:

“,”elementId”:”8fb93d70-5639-4c9b-8f8e-a47dc7dbec71″},{“_type”:”model.dotcomrendering.pageElements.BlockquoteBlockElement”,”html”:”

n

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.

n

“,”elementId”:”56b76fd4-359c-440e-9026-16dd659e71e1″}],”attributes”:{“pinned”:false,”keyEvent”:true,”summary”:false},”blockCreatedOn”:1688137346000,”blockCreatedOnDisplay”:”11.02 EDT”,”blockLastUpdated”:1688137622000,”blockLastUpdatedDisplay”:”11.07 EDT”,”blockFirstPublished”:1688137623000,”blockFirstPublishedDisplay”:”11.07 EDT”,”blockFirstPublishedDisplayNoTimezone”:”11.07″,”title”:”Republicans cheer court ruling against Biden debt relief plan”,”contributors”:[],”primaryDateLine”:”Fri 30 Jun 2023 11.17 EDT”,”secondaryDateLine”:”First published on Fri 30 Jun 2023 08.50 EDT”},{“id”:”649eeb6b8f08ff8b60151381″,”elements”:[{[{“_type”:”model.dotcomrendering.pageElements.TextBlockElement”,”html”:”

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.

“,”elementId”:”29ffaae3-5030-4bc0-9a20-d957095624d4″},{“_type”:”model.dotcomrendering.pageElements.TextBlockElement”,”html”:”

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.

“,”elementId”:”5546017a-398c-49ca-90de-09b0ed789299″},{“_type”:”model.dotcomrendering.pageElements.TextBlockElement”,”html”:”

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.

“,”elementId”:”d36c2acd-6590-479f-8c2c-948723f7cdb1″},{“_type”:”model.dotcomrendering.pageElements.TextBlockElement”,”html”:”

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.

“,”elementId”:”1495d6a7-3a5a-4496-a842-ed9474060783″}],”attributes”:{“pinned”:true,”keyEvent”:true,”summary”:false},”blockCreatedOn”:1688136555000,”blockCreatedOnDisplay”:”10.49 EDT”,”blockLastUpdated”:1688137125000,”blockLastUpdatedDisplay”:”10.58 EDT”,”blockFirstPublished”:1688136999000,”blockFirstPublishedDisplay”:”10.56 EDT”,”blockFirstPublishedDisplayNoTimezone”:”10.56″,”title”:”Supreme court conservatives close term by stopping debt relief and affirmative action, curbing LGTBQ+ protections”,”contributors”:[],”primaryDateLine”:”Fri 30 Jun 2023 11.17 EDT”,”secondaryDateLine”:”First published on Fri 30 Jun 2023 08.50 EDT”},{“id”:”649ee8b18f08ff8b60151343″,”elements”:[{[{“_type”:”model.dotcomrendering.pageElements.TextBlockElement”,”html”:”

In their second opinion, the supreme court’s conservative majority struck down Joe Biden’s program to relieve some federal student loan debt.

“,”elementId”:”b8ce9025-76af-4e3a-968f-f5ae82a21b18″},{“_type”:”model.dotcomrendering.pageElements.TextBlockElement”,”html”:”

The three liberal justices dissented.

“,”elementId”:”ba91aa12-7438-4ce7-94c3-cb5bed113a61″}],”attributes”:{“pinned”:false,”keyEvent”:true,”summary”:false},”blockCreatedOn”:1688135857000,”blockCreatedOnDisplay”:”10.37 EDT”,”blockLastUpdated”:1688136003000,”blockLastUpdatedDisplay”:”10.40 EDT”,”blockFirstPublished”:1688135923000,”blockFirstPublishedDisplay”:”10.38 EDT”,”blockFirstPublishedDisplayNoTimezone”:”10.38″,”title”:”Supreme court conservatives strike down Biden’s student debt relief program”,”contributors”:[],”primaryDateLine”:”Fri 30 Jun 2023 11.17 EDT”,”secondaryDateLine”:”First published on Fri 30 Jun 2023 08.50 EDT”},{“id”:”649ee7d38f08d64edbf191cc”,”elements”:[{[{“_type”:”model.dotcomrendering.pageElements.TextBlockElement”,”html”:”

The supreme court unanimously turned down one of two challenges to Joe Biden’s student loan relief plan, saying the respondents had no standing.

“,”elementId”:”51f25cf6-4464-48d6-a21a-ac4c26420dc0″},{“_type”:”model.dotcomrendering.pageElements.TextBlockElement”,”html”:”

We are waiting for the court’s opinion in the second challenge to the program.

“,”elementId”:”11b2ea05-66d0-41ef-b053-bb12079adfd7″}],”attributes”:{“pinned”:false,”keyEvent”:true,”summary”:false},”blockCreatedOn”:1688135635000,”blockCreatedOnDisplay”:”10.33 EDT”,”blockLastUpdated”:1688135796000,”blockLastUpdatedDisplay”:”10.36 EDT”,”blockFirstPublished”:1688135749000,”blockFirstPublishedDisplay”:”10.35 EDT”,”blockFirstPublishedDisplayNoTimezone”:”10.35″,”title”:”Court turns down first challenge to Biden student loan relief plan”,”contributors”:[],”primaryDateLine”:”Fri 30 Jun 2023 11.17 EDT”,”secondaryDateLine”:”First published on Fri 30 Jun 2023 08.50 EDT”},{“id”:”649ee0478f08ff8b601512a5″,”elements”:[{[{“_type”:”model.dotcomrendering.pageElements.TextBlockElement”,”html”:”

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.

“,”elementId”:”d26bc549-685f-4717-ac14-9724170673d9″}],”attributes”:{“pinned”:false,”keyEvent”:true,”summary”:false},”blockCreatedOn”:1688133703000,”blockCreatedOnDisplay”:”10.01 EDT”,”blockLastUpdated”:1688133756000,”blockLastUpdatedDisplay”:”10.02 EDT”,”blockFirstPublished”:1688133756000,”blockFirstPublishedDisplay”:”10.02 EDT”,”blockFirstPublishedDisplayNoTimezone”:”10.02″,”title”:”Supreme court conservatives rule against Colorado law protecting LGBTQ+ rights”,”contributors”:[],”primaryDateLine”:”Fri 30 Jun 2023 11.17 EDT”,”secondaryDateLine”:”First published on Fri 30 Jun 2023 08.50 EDT”},{“id”:”649edf138f08ff8b6015127d”,”elements”:[{[{“_type”:”model.dotcomrendering.pageElements.TextBlockElement”,”html”:”

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.

“,”elementId”:”bef76ef2-daf1-4691-b423-6e42af372ad3″},{“_type”:”model.dotcomrendering.pageElements.TextBlockElement”,”html”:”

Follow along here as the decisions come out.

“,”elementId”:”39f0a480-88e7-4160-92ca-7366c27b2565″}],”attributes”:{“pinned”:false,”keyEvent”:true,”summary”:false},”blockCreatedOn”:1688133395000,”blockCreatedOnDisplay”:”09.56 EDT”,”blockLastUpdated”:1688133510000,”blockLastUpdatedDisplay”:”09.58 EDT”,”blockFirstPublished”:1688133511000,”blockFirstPublishedDisplay”:”09.58 EDT”,”blockFirstPublishedDisplayNoTimezone”:”09.58″,”title”:”Supreme court to announce decisions”,”contributors”:[],”primaryDateLine”:”Fri 30 Jun 2023 11.17 EDT”,”secondaryDateLine”:”First published on Fri 30 Jun 2023 08.50 EDT”},{“id”:”649ed17d8f08ff8b601511e7″,”elements”:[{[{“_type”:”model.dotcomrendering.pageElements.TextBlockElement”,”html”:”

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.

“,”elementId”:”09c17aee-7aa5-4c63-b66e-6a034bd60d0d”},{“_type”:”model.dotcomrendering.pageElements.TextBlockElement”,”html”:”

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.

“,”elementId”:”a4625bab-bd9b-4b83-ba89-29947e4dd6be”},{“_type”:”model.dotcomrendering.pageElements.TextBlockElement”,”html”:”

Here’s more from his story:

“,”elementId”:”a0e8f65a-22a1-4fb8-b675-4b65df989881″},{“_type”:”model.dotcomrendering.pageElements.BlockquoteBlockElement”,”html”:”

n

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.

n

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.

n

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.

n

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.

n

In court filings, her lawyers produced a copy of the inquiry.

n

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.

n

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.

n

“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.

n

“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.”

n

“,”elementId”:”0099eb27-94b1-4368-8622-2ecb1d9c731a”},{“_type”:”model.dotcomrendering.pageElements.RichLinkBlockElement”,”url”:”https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/jun/29/supreme-court-lgbtq-document-veracity-colorado”,”text”:”Key document may be fake in LGBTQ+ rights case before US supreme court”,”prefix”:”Related: “,”role”:”thumbnail”,”elementId”:”cb864ca7-f2f2-46f0-8159-dbee0cec4c97″}],”attributes”:{“pinned”:false,”keyEvent”:true,”summary”:false},”blockCreatedOn”:1688129917000,”blockCreatedOnDisplay”:”08.58 EDT”,”blockLastUpdated”:1688130470000,”blockLastUpdatedDisplay”:”09.07 EDT”,”blockFirstPublished”:1688130471000,”blockFirstPublishedDisplay”:”09.07 EDT”,”blockFirstPublishedDisplayNoTimezone”:”09.07″,”title”:”In major LGBTQ+ rights case before supreme court, all is not as it seems”,”contributors”:[],”primaryDateLine”:”Fri 30 Jun 2023 11.17 EDT”,”secondaryDateLine”:”First published on Fri 30 Jun 2023 08.50 EDT”},{“id”:”649ec7fc8f08d551cf54b02e”,”elements”:[{[{“_type”:”model.dotcomrendering.pageElements.TextBlockElement”,”html”:”

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.

“,”elementId”:”934b45e9-4020-4959-a243-82764e9895c3″},{“_type”:”model.dotcomrendering.pageElements.TextBlockElement”,”html”:”

Here’s what else is happening:

“,”elementId”:”6e624124-06e5-4d37-bac1-56adc72583b1″},{“_type”:”model.dotcomrendering.pageElements.TextBlockElement”,”html”:”

n

• 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.

n

• Biden elaborated on his comment that the current supreme court is “not a normal court” in an interview with MSNBC last night.

n

• 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.

n

“,”elementId”:”a38c8259-02eb-45ab-866d-8f725d8c247a”}],”attributes”:{“pinned”:false,”keyEvent”:true,”summary”:false},”blockCreatedOn”:1688129436000,”blockCreatedOnDisplay”:”08.50 EDT”,”blockLastUpdated”:1688128649000,”blockLastUpdatedDisplay”:”08.37 EDT”,”blockFirstPublished”:1688129436000,”blockFirstPublishedDisplay”:”08.50 EDT”,”blockFirstPublishedDisplayNoTimezone”:”08.50″,”title”:”Student debt relief, LGBTQ+ protections at risk as supreme court issues more opinions”,”contributors”:[],”primaryDateLine”:”Fri 30 Jun 2023 11.17 EDT”,”secondaryDateLine”:”First published on Fri 30 Jun 2023 08.50 EDT”}],”filterKeyEvents”:false,”format”:{“display”:0,”theme”:0,”design”:10},”id”:”key-events-carousel-mobile”}”>

Key events

Show key events only

Please turn on JavaScript to use this feature

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.

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:

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.

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.

“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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.”

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.

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.

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.”

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.