Politics

(WASHINGTON) — Former vice president and 2024 presidential hopeful Mike Pence on Sunday celebrated the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling that effectively ends affirmative action at U.S. colleges, telling ABC “This Week” co-anchor Jonathan Karl that while he thought there was once “a time” for the practice, “those days are over.”

“I think there was a time for affirmative action … to open the doors of our colleges and universities to minority students and particularly African Americans who may have been denied access. But I think those days are over,” he said.

“I have every confidence that African Americans and other minority Americans are going to continue to compete and succeed in universities around the country, but we’re going to do it with a colorblind society that I think is the aspiration of every American,” Pence told Karl.

The Thursday decision from the nation’s highest court set new limits sharply restricting how race can be considered in college admissions, with the conservative majority ruling that programs at two top universities violated equal protection under the Constitution.

The opinion drew a range of differing opinions from politicians and advocates. An ABC News/Ipsos poll out Sunday found that 52% of Americans approved of the decision while 32% disapproved, though opinions split along ideological and racial lines.

Karl asked Pence on “This Week” if it would be “a problem for America” if as a result of this ruling less Black and Hispanic students were admitted to the nation’s top universities.

Pence did not directly answer and instead hailed the victory as “a tribute to our minority students.”

“I really believe that the decision by the Supreme Court today was an acknowledgement of the incredible progress that minority Americans have made, their extraordinary educational achievements,” he added, noting that the use of race in college admissions “went away a little sooner” than former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor notably predicted in a 2003 opinion.

Karl followed up and repeated his question, pointing to data from the nine states that have already banned affirmative action. At some elite colleges there, enrollment of minority students, particularly of those who are Black and Hispanic, dropped.

“Look, I haven’t seen your studies. I don’t know the numbers. … I’m just very confident that African Americans, Hispanic Americans and other minorities are going to be able to compete and succeed,” Pence said.

Karl pressed Pence on a wrinkle in Chief Justice John Roberts’ majority opinion: that military academies can still factor in race of applicants in making their decisions, because of “potentially distinct” and “compelling” interests for the government and national security.

Karl paraphrased a sharply worded dissent from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson: “One standard for the boardroom, another standard for the bunker — doesn’t she have a case? A point there?”

“This probably won’t be the first time that I disagree with our newest justice,” Pence said.

“But Jon, come on. The American has been an instrument of advancing equality since virtually the founding of this country,” he said.

Karl followed up. “If you agree that this is the way it should be for universities across the country, should it also apply to the military academies? Why the carve out?”

“I’d refer your viewers to the decision itself,” Pence said, before turning to boast about the Trump administration’s role in selecting Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, all of whom were in the majority ending affirmative action.

Another “real victory” Pence celebrated was a Supreme Court ruling on Friday in favor of a website designer who said her Christian beliefs compelled her not to make sites for same-sex couples.

“You said … there is no place for discrimination based on race in the United States. I think everybody would absolutely agree with that. Do you also believe there is no place for discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity?” Karl asked Pence.

Pence again did not directly answer, telling Karl, “I’m a Bible-believing Christian. I’ve always believed that marriage is between one man and one woman. But the Supreme Court, now [for] the better part of 10 years ago, recognized same-sex marriage. But now, in what is the second important case in this area, this week, that strong conservative majority also affirmed the right of every American to live, to work, to worship, according to the dictates of their conscience.”

Pence talks surprise Ukraine trip

Pence’s interview on “This Week” concluded with him addressing his surprise trip last week to war-torn Ukraine — which sets him apart from other Republican presidential candidates, some of whom have sounded more skeptical about America’s ongoing commitment in the conflict.

Karl asked if Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy seemed open to considering territorial concessions to Russia in order to end the invasion. In a recent interview, former President Donald Trump said that would be “subject to negotiation” if he is back in the White House, along with all other aspects of the fighting.

Pence avoided weighing in, instead touting the “courage and resolve” of the Ukrainians and saying he believes President Joe Biden has “failed miserably” in explaining to Americans the importance of supporting Ukraine.

“He’s given these gauzy speeches about democracy. … Look, we’re there because it’s in our national interest to give the Ukrainian military the ability to rebut and defeat Russian aggression,” Pence said. “Because if Russia overran Ukraine, I have no doubt, Jon, that it wouldn’t be too long before they crossed the border, where American servicemen and women would be required to go and fight.”

Biden has also said backing Ukraine is about preserving freedom in Europe and curbing the ambition of “autocrats” like Russian President Vladimir Putin.

While in Ukraine, Pence tweeted, “I know the difference between a genius and a war criminal, and I know who needs to win this war in Ukraine … There is no room in our party for apologists for Putin.”

Karl asked Pence if that was a reference to Trump.

“Obviously, it’s President Trump who said that the invasion of Ukraine was genius. So are you saying, essentially, that Donald Trump is an apologist to Putin?” Karl pressed.

Pence declined to directly respond, though he again stressed his unabashed support of Ukraine.

“Look, others in this Republican primary have said that it was a territorial dispute,” he said, referencing a phrase Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis had used (and subsequently said was misunderstood).

“I do know the difference between a genius and a war criminal,” Pence added, “and Vladimir Putin’s unconscionable and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine was an act of naked aggression.”

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NORTH CAROLINA) — North Carolina now prohibits abortions after 12 weeks of pregnancy, bringing its limit down from 20 weeks.

This comes despite a lawsuit filed by Planned Parenthood and Dr. Beverly Gray, an abortion provider, challenging the legality of the ban, which requested a temporary restraining order on the ban before it went into effect Saturday.

The judge issued a ruling allowing most of the ban to go into effect, with the exception of one rule that would have required physicians prescribing medication abortions to document the pregnancy in their medical chart, according to the order. The temporary restraining order will remain in effect until July 14, as litigation continues.

Another provision, which requires sexual assault survivors to obtain an abortion in a hospital after 12-weeks of pregnancy will not go into effect until Oct. 1, according to Planned Parenthood.

In response to the suit, the legislature passed a bill clarifying some provisions that are at the center of the lawsuit. This includes allowing abortion pills to be prescribed beyond the 10-week limit that the ban had originally established and that providers cannot be prosecuted for providing legal abortions.

“Our legal challenge forced General Assembly leadership to clean up their mess of a bill, but we never should have had to sue to get clarity on how to comply with this law. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic remains committed to providing abortion care to as many people as possible within the unjust and inhumane confines of this abortion ban, and we encourage anyone in need of abortion care to contact us as soon as possible for help navigating this new reality,” Jenny Black, the president & CEO of Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, said in a statement Friday.

The North Carolina Legislature’s Republican supermajority overrode the Democratic governor’s veto of an abortion ban, passing the 12-week ban in May. The Republicans garnered a supermajority after a lawmaker switched parties less than six months after being elected into office as a Democrat.

The new ban will require abortion providers to give a state-mandated script about the risk of abortions 72 hours before the appointment.

The ban permits exceptions for cases of rape and incest up to 20 weeks of pregnancy and fatal or life-limiting fetal anomalies up to 24 weeks of pregnancy. It also permits abortions for ectopic pregnancies and to save the life of the mother.

Any abortions performed in accordance with the exceptions permitted by the ban are required to be reported to the state’s Department of Health. The report must include a record of evidence explaining why the abortion care is permitted under the exceptions.

North Carolina is a key point of abortion access for women in the South who live in states where nearly all abortions have ceased since Roe v. Wade was overturned a year ago, ending federal protections for abortion rights.

North Carolina saw the third-largest increase — behind Florida and Illinois — in the total number of abortions provided by a clinician during the nine-month period after Roe was overturned, according to data collected by WeCount.

Access to abortion in Florida is also at risk as the state’s Supreme Court examines the legality of a 15-week ban. If the court upholds the ban, a separate law that implements a six-week abortion ban will go into effect.

In the last year, 15 states have ceased nearly all abortion services.

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — While about a dozen major Republican candidates are fighting for the 2024 nomination, a more under-the-radar quadrennial competition is starting: the race to be the still-unnamed nominee’s running mate.

The 2024 veepstakes — still in its infancy — is mostly fuel for speculation, but squinting can reveal early jockeying for a potential spot on the ticket depending on who heads it.

South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem and Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds are viewed as well-positioned to be vice presidential picks by sources who know them and outside GOP strategists, and current presidential candidates like former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley and South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott are constantly beating back conjecture that they’re actually seeking to set up camp at the Naval Observatory instead of at the White House.

“Everybody says they don’t want it, but then ultimately everybody does want it, right? And I don’t think that that excludes [Noem] or any of the other potential leading candidates,” said a person familiar with Noem’s thinking.

Noem was speculated to be considering a White House run of her own, though that appears less likely now.

However, she’s ramping up advertising and is expected to travel more outside South Dakota. South Dakota this month launched a nationwide ad campaign aimed at workforce recruitment. The effort’s two ads prominently feature Noem and are set to run through the summer. The source familiar with Noem’s thinking also teased more travel by the governor and said her attendance at next month’s Family Leadership Summit in the critical early voting state of Iowa is a “lock.”

In an interview with a local news outlet Tuesday, Noem stopped short of endorsing former President Donald Trump’s comeback bid but did say “I don’t see a path to victory for anybody else with him in the race and the situation as it sits today” — boosting the candidate who is widely considered the primary favorite.

“These ads are really getting a lot of attention. She did ‘Fox & Friends’ on it. She did Kilmeade. She did ‘Hannity.’ All of this is designed to demonstrate to people across the country what she’s doing in the state,” said the source familiar with Noem’s thinking, referencing the ad campaign. “Number one, it brings people to South Dakota. Number two, it’s a really, really, really smart marketing opportunity if you don’t want to file for president to keep your name top of mind.”

“Just think of that, and then we’ll see what her travel schedule looks like over the coming weeks and months,” the person teased.

Should Noem ultimately be tapped, allies say she can boast a strong fundraising base, tap into ties to congressional leaders after eight years in the House before becoming governor and highlight her claims that South Dakota did not experience lengthy shutdowns during the coronavirus pandemic. And with mostly men leading the primary field, Noem would also offer an opportunity to bring gender diversity to the ticket.

“She’s definitely had a national profile and worked to maintain that. And that’s had some benefits to South Dakota, but it’s also meant that she has horizons beyond just being governor of South Dakota,” said one South Dakota GOP official. “I think there’s a broad assumption that that’s something she’d be interested in.”

Just to the east, Reynolds is also making waves. As the governor of Iowa, Reynolds has appeared at events with several presidential contenders eager to gin up support for the state’s caucuses — a ubiquity that sparked a Wall Street Journal profile.

Reynolds also highlighted her foreign policy chops by meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Wednesday and gained plaudits in 2022 for her response to President Joe Biden’s State of the Union address — a role typically reserved for a party up-and-comer.

“I think she would definitely consider it, and I think she would see it as an honor for all of Iowa and for Iowans to be considered. And if she thought she could elevate Iowa values, Iowa common sense to the country, I think she then would welcome that invitation,” said Bob Vander Plaats, an influential evangelical activist in Iowa who speaks with Reynolds.

Like Noem, Reynolds would offer a presidential nominee a rising star and deeply conservative record, including a laser focus on how race and sexuality are taught in public schools — another issue popular with the GOP base.

“I think she does her job so well that it would compel someone to consider [her]. She’s been an incredibly effective governor. She’s passing her agenda, which is popular in the state of Iowa,” said David Kochel, a GOP strategist who worked on both of Reynolds’ gubernatorial campaigns. “If I were the Republican nominee, it’d be a pretty short list of people I would look at, and she is right at the top of it.”

Beyond Noem and Reynolds, operatives who spoke with ABC News also mentioned people like Arkansas Gov. Sarah Sanders and Tennessee Sen. Marsha Blackburn as potential picks.

However, a source familiar with Sanders’ thinking told ABC News she intends to serve as governor for eight years, though “she’s certainly aware that her name has been mentioned,” and a spokesperson for Blackburn insisted she’s running for reelection in 2024.

Sources who spoke to ABC News also repeatedly mentioned Haley and Scott, both of whom are polling in the low single digits and have thus far struggled to expand their bases — sparking whispers that they may be using presidential bids to increase their name recognition and then become vice president or score a spot in a GOP administration. Scott himself years ago even expressed openness to being a vice president.

Both of their campaigns have continually denounced the speculation, calling it offensive and insisting their candidates are in the race for the long haul.

Yet if there is a hidden scheme in their campaigns, strategists cast doubts on whether a presidential campaign could turn into a spot as the party’s No. 2.

“If you think you can become vice president by running for president, that’s not always the best strategy because if you run a poor campaign for president, then why should you be vice president? And if you run a great campaign for president, then in all likelihood you’ve attacked the eventual nominee on the way,” said Alex Conant, a GOP strategist who worked on Sen. Marco Rubio’s, R-Fla., 2016 presidential bid.

Bob Heckman, a GOP strategist and veteran of several presidential campaigns, suggested “the best way to set yourself up is [to] pick the winning horse and be supportive.”

“I don’t think that in the Republican Party, there has been a tendency to try to find someone who ran against you or supported those people who ran against you and make that person a vice presidential nominee,” he said.

If that’s true, that could potentially indicate Noem’s positive comments about Trump are part of a larger play — and put any possible vice presidential ambitions of Scott and Haley, who has been sharply critical of Trump, in peril. Reynolds, meanwhile, has said she’ll remain neutral at least through the Iowa caucuses.

The last Republican presidential nominee to select a primary opponent as his running mate was Ronald Reagan, who brought on George H.W. Bush as his running mate in the 1980 general election after he defeated him in the Republican primaries earlier that year.

Still, all would-be vice presidential candidates could have a tightrope to walk, lest they appear too eager for the role.

“Being seen as campaigning for it,” Conant warned, “is probably the quickest way to get yourself off the list.”

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON, D.C.) — Justice Sonia Sotomayor accused the U.S. Supreme Court of granting businesses the right “to refuse to serve members of a protected class” for the first time in its history.

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Friday in favor of a evangelical Christian website designer who argued that a Colorado anti-discrimination law violated her First Amendment right to refuse to create websites for same-sex weddings.

Sotomayor noted a nationwide rise in anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination and called it “heartbreaking.”

“Sadly, it is also familiar,” she wrote in her dissent. “When the civil rights and women’s rights movements sought equality in public life, some public establishments refused. Some even claimed, based on sincere religious beliefs, constitutional rights to discriminate. The brave Justices who once sat on this Court decisively rejected those claims.”

Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined the dissent.

The Supreme Court on Friday ruled in favor of the evangelical Christian businesswoman in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, a case involving whether creative businesses can refuse to serve LGBTQ+ customers because of First Amendment free speech rights.

The Court holds that the company has a right to post a notice that says, “‘no [wedding websites] will be sold if they will be used for gay marriages.”

The dissenting justices say the Constitution contains “no right to refuse service to a disfavored group” and argued that the decision could open the door for discrimination.

“The decision threatens to balkanize the market and to allow the exclusion of other groups from many services,” the dissent reads. “A website designer could equally refuse to create a wedding website for an interracial couple, for example.”

Sotomayor acknowledged the growing anti-LGBTQ+ political backlash nationwide, which has lead to threats and violence against the queer community.

“Around the country, there has been a backlash to the movement for liberty and equality for gender and sexual minorities,” Sotomayor wrote in her dissent. “New forms of inclusion have been met with reactionary exclusion.”

Sotomayor wrote, “The law in question targets conduct, not speech, for regulation, and the act of discrimination has never constituted protected expression under the First Amendment.”

President Joe Biden also criticized the decision in a statement, arguing that “no person should face discrimination simply because of who they are or who they love” in America.

“The Supreme Court’s disappointing decision in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis undermines that basic truth, and painfully it comes during Pride month when millions of Americans across the country join together to celebrate the contributions, resilience, and strength of the LGBTQI+ community,” Biden wrote.

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — An attorney for Hunter Biden on Friday transmitted a sharp and sweeping letter to a powerful Republican lawmaker condemning his handling of an IRS whistleblower who has accused Justice Department officials of undermining the DOJ’s investigation into President Joe Biden’s son.

Abbe Lowell, an attorney for Hunter Biden, accused Rep. Jason Smith, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, of leveraging comments made by an IRS supervisory agent as “an obvious ploy to feed the misinformation campaign to harm our client, Hunter Biden, as a vehicle to attack his father.”

Smith last week released transcripts of the committee’s interviews with two IRS whistleblowers who in April accused the Justice Department of granting Hunter Biden “preferential treatment” during the DOJ’s yearslong probe of his tax affairs.

The move came just days after the younger Biden agreed to plead guilty to a pair of tax-related misdemeanors and enter into a pretrial diversion agreement that would enable him to avoid prosecution on one felony gun charge, potentially ending the DOJ’s investigation.

Lowell, in his letter to Smith, accused the IRS agent, Gary Shapley, of being “disgruntled” and of seeking whistleblower status “in an attempt to evade their own misconduct” — implying that Shapley was the source of leaks to the press about the Justice Department’s investigation into Hunter Biden.

“Mr. Shapley may be reaping the ‘reward’ from the cover you have given him, considering the penalties for agents illegally leaking this type of information,” Lowell wrote.

Attorney General Merrick Garland has said that Trump-appointed U.S. Attorney David Weiss has “ultimate authority” over the probe, and both Garland and the White House have denied any interference in Weiss’ investigation.

Lowell also cast doubt on the authenticity of a July 2017 WhatsApp message in which the younger Biden purportedly threatened a Chinese business associate by invoking his father’s political connections.

In the message, Hunter Biden purportedly wrote that he was “sitting here with my father and we would like to understand why the commitment made has not been fulfilled” — a statement Lowell denied in his letter.

“The facts … are that President Biden and our client were not together that day … and that no transaction actually occurred,” Lowell wrote. “More important, your own actions call into question the authenticity of that communication and your subsequent use of it.”

Lowell reserved equally harsh language for Smith, accusing the Republican chairman of “violat[ing] the spirit, if not the letter, of the tax laws and federal rules government investigations.”

“Chairman Smith, it is easy when a committee does not operate with fairness and thoroughness and an adherence to rules and procedures to forward a false political narrative,” Lowell wrote. “You have done that, and it appears that you … will continue to do that.”

“We can only hope that the specious methods you are using, some of which are laid out in this letter, will inform the public of the right way things should be done,” Lowell wrote.

Responding to the letter, Shapley’s attorneys said in a statement, “This attempt to intimidate our client and the oversight authorities scrutinizing the politicization of that case is no surprise. IRS SSA Gary Shapley has scrupulously followed the rules and blew the whistle to Congress about the unequal application of tax laws.”

Smith likewise defended Shapley in a statement, saying he “bravely came forward with allegations about misconduct and preferential treatment for Hunter Biden — and now face attacks even from an army of lawyers he hired.”

“Worse, this letter misleads the public about the lawful actions taken by the Ways and Means Committee, which took the appropriate legal steps to share this information with rest of Congress,” Smith said.

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON, D.C.) — President Joe Biden said Friday his administration is moving forward with a new student loan relief plan after the Supreme Court struck down his original program to wipe out $430 billion in debt.

Biden detailed the next steps in remarks delivered at the White House, where he was joined by Education Secretary Miguel Cardona.

“This new path is legally sound,” the president said. “It’s going to take longer. And in my view, it’s the best path that remains to student debt relief to as many borrowers as possible as quickly as possible.”

Under the alternative strategy, Biden said the administration will invoke the 1965 Higher Education Act to allow Secretary Cardona to “compromise, waive or release loans under certain circumstances.”

In the meantime, Biden said they also have a plan to help alleviate the financial stress as loan payments restart in October after a three-year pause.

The administration will create a temporary, 12-month “on-ramp repayment program” that will remove the threat of default for borrowers who are unable to pay their bills. The Department of Education will not refer borrowers who miss payments to credit agencies for a year as they readjust to making payments again.

“Today’s decision has closed one path, now we’re going to pursue another,” Biden said. “I’m never going to stop fighting for you. I will use every tool at our disposal to get you the student debt relief you need and reach your dreams. It’s good for the economy and good for the country and can be good for you.”

Biden also noted other work by administration to provide relief, including modifications to the income-driven repayment plan to cut down the amount that borrowers have to make on their monthly payments by half — from 10% of their discretionary income to 5%. Biden said the change will save the average borrower $1,000 a year.

“It’s now the most generous repayment program ever,” he said.

In a 6-3 decision earlier Friday, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority said the administration overstepped its authority when it unilaterally moved to waive billions in debt for eligible Americans.

Biden said he thought the court “misinterpreted the Constitution” in its ruling.

Biden’s federal student loan program would have forgiven up to $10,000 in debt for borrowers making less than $125,000 a year. Borrowers who took out Pell grants to pay for college could have had up to $20,000 canceled.

Forty-three million Americans would have qualified for the program, and the Education Department had already approved applications for 16 million borrowers before it was put on halt last fall due to legal challenges.

Biden on Friday hit Republicans for opposing his plan, painting them as hypocritical for opposing relief for borrowers while some had their own business-related loans provided by the government during the pandemic forgiven.

“The money was literally about to go out the door,” he said of his original plan. “And then Republican elected officials and special interests stepped in and said no, literally snatching from the hands of millions of Americans thousands of dollars in student debt relief that was about to change their lives.”

Biden’s loan forgiveness program was rooted in the 2003 HEROES Act, a law passed in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks that gave the president authority to waive or modify loans in national emergencies.

Chief Justice John Roberts said the text of HEROES Act didn’t authorize the program, and the court’s precedent “requires that Congress speak clearly before a department secretary can unilaterally alter large sections of the American economy.”

Biden pushed back after a reporter asked him why he gave Americans “false hope” on this issue.

“What I did I thought was appropriate and was able to be done and would get done,” he said. “I didn’t give borrowers false hope but the Republican snatched away the hope that they were given and it’s real, real hope.”

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — LGBTQ+ advocates, and the dissenting Supreme Court judges, fear the recent Supreme Court ruling on free speech has opened the door to encourage discrimination.

The Supreme Court ruled on Friday in favor of an evangelical Christian website designer in a case involving whether businesses can refuse to do services that involve expressive speech because of First Amendment free speech rights.

The Court holds that the website designer cannot be forced by Colorado law to create expressive messages with which the designer disagrees.

In this case, the designs would be for a wedding website for an LGBTQ+ wedding, which the designer may be opposed to.

The ruling comes on the last day of Pride month, which celebrates the LGBTQ+ community.

It also comes amid an increasingly hostile political climate against this demographic, which has seen a rise in violence and threats.

“This decision by the Supreme Court is a dangerous step backward, giving some businesses the power to discriminate against people simply because of who we are,” said Kelley Robinson, the president of the Human Rights Campaign.

She continued, “This decision continues to affirm how radical and out-of-touch this Court is, especially when 80 percent of Americans support robust and LGBTQ+ inclusive nondiscrimination laws.”

“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,” the opinion by Justice Neil Gorsuch reads.

In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said this is the first time in history the court has granted a business open to the public a right to refuse service to members of a protected class.

“The law in question targets conduct, not speech, for regulation, and the act of discrimination has never constituted protected expression under the First Amendment,” said Sotomayor. “Our Constitution contains no right to refuse service to a disfavored group.”

Sotomayor warned the decision could lead to discrimination against other marginalized groups as well on the basis of free speech: “A website designer could equally refuse to create a wedding website for an interracial couple, for example,” the dissent read.

Dr. David J. Johns, executive director of the Black LGBTQ+ civil rights organization National Black Justice Coalition, criticized the far-reaching implications of the decision.

“The decision threatens the progress towards achieving full equality, creates a climate of uncertainty and fear for LGBTQ+ individuals who already face significant discrimination and violence when simply trying to live their lives, and, as a result, weakens democracy,” Johns said in a statement.

Nearly 500 bills targeting the LGBTQ+ community have been introduced in state legislatures across the country this year, according to the ACLU.

“This decision will bring harm and stigma to LGBTQ families and is yet another example of a Court that is out of touch with the supermajority of Americans who believe in fundamental freedoms and know that discrimination is wrong,” GLAAD President Sarah Kate Ellis said in a statement. “Businesses that are open to the public should serve all in the public.”

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court on Friday struck down the Biden administration program to forgive student debt for more than 43 million American borrowers at a cost of $400 billion.

The vote was 6-3, with conservative justices in the majority in an opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts.

Six GOP-led states had challenged the program as executive power overreach. The administration had argued it was supported by emergency powers Congress had passed under COVID relief legislation.

Story developing…

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court on Friday ruled for an evangelical Christian website designer in a case involving whether creative businesses can refuse to serve LGBTQ+ customers because of First Amendment free speech rights.

Story developing…

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — Embattled Rep. George Santos is set to appear in court Friday morning in his first court appearance since pleading not guilty last month to a 13-count indictment accusing him of fraud, money laundering and theft of public funds.

The Republican New York congressman, who has denied wrongdoing, is scheduled to appear at noon Friday for a status conference hearing in front of U.S. District Judge Joanna Seybert on Long Island.

Friday’s appearance comes a week after it was revealed that Santos’ father and aunt guaranteed his $500,000 bond, according to court documents that were unsealed over the congressman’s objection.

ABC News’ Rachel Scott was first to report that Santos’ bond was guaranteed by Gercino dos Santos Jr. and Elma Santos Preven.

Under the terms of the bond, neither of them were required to provide any funds for Santos’ release — only to be financially responsible “if the defendant does not comply with the conditions” of his release.

Santos maintained that he objected to the names being unsealed out of fear of harassment.

“I can handle that; I ran for public office,” he told reporters. “They did not; they’re private citizens.”

Santos, who has been accused of misrepresenting large swaths of his employment record, his education, and his family history, has admitted that he lied about portions of his background while running for Congress.

He’s also facing an investigation by the House Ethics Committee, which issued a rare letter last week stating that the committee had issued more than 30 subpoenas and more than 40 voluntary requests for information in their probe.

The panel also said it had expanded its probe to look into allegations of unemployment insurance fraud.

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.