The NPR Politics Podcast - Obamacare Wins At SCOTUS; Biden Admin Expands Transgender Student Protections

Episode Date: June 17, 2021

The Supreme Court threw out a Republican-led challenge to the Affordable Care Act, and the justices ruled unanimously in favor of a Catholic foster agency denying service to LGBTQ couples. Plus, the Biden administration expanded transgender and gay student protections, setting up potential legal battles in conservative states. This episode: Congressional correspondent Kelsey Snell, White House correspondent Asma Khalid, national justive correspondent Carrie Johnson, and education correspondent Cory Turner.Connect:Subscribe to the NPR Politics Podcast here.Email the show at [e-mail] the NPR Politics Podcast Facebook Group.Listen to our playlist The NPR Politics Daily Workout.Subscribe to the NPR Politics Newsletter.Find and support your local public radio station.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

This is Erin Lemon from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Four years ago, my eighth grade social studies class recorded an opening for the NPR Politics podcast. Today, I'm on my way to their high school graduation. This podcast was recorded at 1.54 p.m. on Thursday, June 17th. Things may have changed by the time you hear this, but I'll still be beaming with pride for how far these kids have come. Congratulations to the class of 2021. Congratulations, guys. Oh, that's wonderful. Congratulations.

They've sure endured a lot. Good for them. Absolutely true. Very cool. Well, hey there. It's the NPR Politics Podcast. I'm Kelsey Snell. I cover Congress. I'm Asma Khalid. I cover the White House. And I'm Keri Johnson, national justice correspondent. And it's opinion day at the Supreme Court, and we've got a couple of the major decisions we were expecting this term. In a 7-2 vote, the Supreme Court threw out a challenge to the

Affordable Care Act, and the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Catholic foster agency that refused to work with LGBTQ couples. Let's start with the foster care case, Carrie. The case deals with a Catholic social services organization that had a contract with the city of Philadelphia to provide foster care services. Philadelphia canceled that contract because the agency wouldn't work with LGBTQ couples. So can you tell us more about what the central question was here? Sure. One of the central issues was whether this decision by the city of Philadelphia violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. That part, you'll remember this as Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. And basically,

Catholic Social Services said they were being put between a rock and a hard place by the city's decision, either fulfill their mission and their belief that, their sincere belief that marriage is between one man and one woman, or bend on those principles. And they said that just shouldn't be the case. And the court ultimately did decide to side with the Catholic Social Services Agency today. You know, the ruling was unanimous, nine to zero. And Carrie, that seems on its face pretty significant. But I guess explain that to us. I mean, what exactly did the justices say? It was a victory for the Catholic Social Services Agency and the religious community writ large, Asma,

but it's not as huge a victory as they had intended or hoped, given this composition of the Supreme Court. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts basically said that Catholic Social Services sought only an accommodation here that is going to allow it to keep serving children of Philadelphia foster kids in a manner consistent with its religious beliefs, but that the Catholic Social Services Agency did not seek to impose those beliefs on anyone else. And the majority decision was fairly narrowly tailored, and it talked about some of the language in the contract that because Philadelphia had this option to grant exceptions to some of its policies, that it could have granted an exception to Catholic social services in that case. And in fact, the decision did not go nearly far enough for a lot of religious groups or the court's

conservatives. While Justice Samuel Alito agreed with the decision, the way things came out in the case, he wrote a 77-page blistering response, basically calling this a wisp of a decision that leaves religious liberty in a confused and vulnerable state. He was outraged that the court majority didn't go even further and overrule a court precedent from over two decades ago on religious freedom. So you're saying essentially this is not necessarily going to be a wide-reaching decision. I mean, are people interpreting this pretty narrowly? You know, I heard from the ACLU and some other advocates that they believe this ruling was pretty narrowly tailored

to the facts of this case, but it certainly is a signal. And it's a signal for more litigation to come as Neil Gorsuch, Justice Neil Gorsuch said, there is going to be a lot more litigation on these issues at the lower court level and at the Supreme Court level. And it's yet another sign that this new court majority is very concerned with religious freedom, and in some cases may prioritize religious freedom over the rights of LGBTQ people in a way that's alarming to advocates in that community and other communities in the country. It wasn't the full victory that some conservatives had sought today, though. Okay, so let's turn to the other major decision today, our third time hearing from the court on

the Affordable Care Act. This time, they decided 7-2 to dismiss a challenge to the law by the Trump administration and some GOP-led states. So, Carrie, what did they say? You know, they didn't get to the substance of this case. Basically, the court majorities, by about a 7 to 2, said these plaintiffs didn't have standing to challenge the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, because they couldn't show that they had suffered an injury. Remember back in 2017, Congress zeroed out the financial penalty for not having insurance, that so-called individual mandate. And without that, these plaintiffs couldn't prove to the court majority or demonstrate that they had suffered some kind of harm or injury

or coercion. In that case, the majority of justices said, what are we doing here? There's nothing to fight about. You know, Carrie, it's interesting to hear you say that the court didn't actually get to the substance of the argument here, because when you hear what the White House is saying, I mean, they are declaring this a big win, that this is an indication that the court is upholding the Affordable Care Act. In fact, we actually saw a tweet from President Biden himself with a nod back to this very famous moment in 2010 when he was caught on a hot mic referring to the ACA as a big effing deal. He said on Twitter today that with millions of people relying on the Affordable Care Act for coverage, it remains as

ever a BFD and it's here to stay. Republicans are kind of framing this completely differently. They're saying that Obamacare passed by a partisan vote in Congress and they are going to continue fighting. I mean, they do not see this as a done deal. And I gather that, you know, Republican governors don't really find this to be a done deal either. Not only that, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican who's been at the center of a lot of these legal challenges to the Affordable Care Act, issued a statement today saying the fight's not over. In fact, it's only just begun. One other thing I've been picking up is some disgust from Senate Republicans and other conservatives that this issue of the Affordable Care Act became a huge issue in the confirmation fight for new justice Amy Coney Barrett. Progressives had basically said if you confirm her to the court, that means the Affordable Care Act is dead.

Obviously, today she sided with the majority and Chief Justice John Roberts in upholding the Affordable Care Act, or at the very least, turning aside this legal challenge. So that did not prove to be the case, despite all the rhetoric in her confirmation fight. And there was a lot of it, as you will recall. That was like one of the main arguments that was happening during that confirmation process. Absolutely. I guess the justices can still surprise folks. So there are still more big decisions that we're watching out for. And that means, Carrie, we'll be talking to you again very soon. So thanks for joining us. My pleasure. And we're going to take a quick break. And when we get back,

the Biden administration extends civil rights protections for joining us. My pleasure. And we're going to take a quick break. And when we get back, the Biden administration extends civil rights protections for transgender students. An internal investigation found that a cop with the California Highway Patrol sexually harassed 21 women. But those findings were kept secret until a new state transparency law passed. We dug through hours of tapes to find out what happens to officers who cross the line. Listen to On Our Watch, a podcast from NPR and KQED. And we're back and we have Corey Turner from NPR's education team with us here. Hi, Corey. Hey, Kelsey. We're really glad you're here because yesterday, Biden's education department expanded its

interpretation of sex protections to include transgender and gay students reversing a Trump era policy. So, Corey, this all pivots around the civil rights law known as Title IX. Quickly, can you tell us what that is? Yeah, you bet. So Title IX is a federal law from 1972 that prohibits sex discrimination in schools that receive federal funding. And what the department's office for civil rights did on Wednesday is it issued what's called a notice of interpretation saying basically title nine now also prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. And they're going to enforce it as such. A little bit of context, Kelsey, this decision comes about a year after

the Supreme Court in a 6-3 ruling said employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity is inherently sex discrimination. So basically what the Ed Department is saying here is, look, if it's true in workplaces, it's true in schools. And in a statement announcing the move, Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona said, today, the department makes clear that all students, including LGBTQ plus students, deserve the opportunity to learn and thrive in schools that are free from discrimination. So part of what we're seeing here is that the Biden administration is trying to offer a greater clarity on its guidance of reaffirming the rights of transgender people. And we've seen this with other guidance in terms of the things we've seen from, say, the Department of Health and Human Services. And this is all an attempt to essentially offer

greater clarity because the Trump administration essentially reversed guidance that would reaffirm the rights of transgender people that the Obama administration had first put into place. And, you know, I guess the question I have still, though, Corey, is that in terms of what we are seeing and what we're hearing from the education department, it seems like they are saying that transgender students will be protected under Title IX. But I'm unclear as to what, I guess, enforcement mechanisms there actually are, because we're seeing a number of states that have essentially put in place laws that would defy the Education Department's guidance.

Yeah, absolutely, Asma. And I think this is a bit of an open question. I spent much of this morning talking with lawyers, asking them the very question. So if a school tries to follow that law, the Ed Department can leverage the federal funding, say, well, we'll withhold federal funds. Here's the thing I can tell you, though, Asma, the Ed Department never does that. So what I heard from attorneys is what's more likely is the Education Department will basically sue and say, you have to come into compliance with our view of Title IX. And then the question is, what happens next? The Ed Department can use its interpretation of the law as, you know, using the ruling from the Supreme Court last year as its foundational argument and say, we're in the right here. And I think basically what happens next, we're going to see play out in the courts. That's so interesting, because this is a hugely animating issue on the right,

like this is a big political issue. And it falls under this broader umbrella of culture war issues that I keep hearing from Republicans as a way they think they're going to win elections, the way they think that they can appeal to voters. And this is broader than just transgender rights, but they also apply to things like critical race theory and, you know, police reform, things that they think that they can argue outside of the policy realm, in the political realm. And if it moves into the courts, it seems like this drags that issue further and further out in the future. Is that basically right? Yeah, I mean, Kelsey, I was surprised the first time this has come up in my reporting. It actually came up in a really big way during the current education secretary's confirmation hearing before the Senate Education Committee back in February. Miguel Cardona, who was later confirmed, was asked a really pointed question

about this by Kentucky Republican Rand Paul. Basically, the Connecticut, you know, Cardona's from Connecticut, the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference had decided to allow transgender students to participate in sports based on gender identity, and Paul clearly didn't like it. So you don't have a problem then with boys running in the girls' track meets, name it. You're okay then with boys competing with girls. By police standard, I think I answered the question. I believe schools should offer the opportunity for students to engage in extracurricular activities, even if they're transgender. I think that's their right. And that's just part of the interaction. It bounced back and forth with Paul looking for some sort of concession from Cardona, and Cardona held his ground.

And so I look at the decision Wednesday as really the inevitable next step in this fight between Cardona and the education department and obviously the Biden administration more broadly. And as you said, Kelsey, this sort of culture war movement towards just finding any issue that will animate the conservative base. All right, this is absolutely just the beginning of an ongoing conversation, but we're going to have to leave it there for now. Corey, thank you so much for joining us. Thanks for having me. I'm Kelsey Snell. I cover Congress. And I'm Asma Khalid. I cover the White House. And thank you for listening to the NPR Politics Podcast.