GEOFF BENNETT: Good evening, and welcome to the "NewsHour."

We are following two major decisions on the final day of the Supreme Court's term.

The justices struck down President Biden's plan to cancel more than $400 billion in student loan debt for millions of borrowers.

The court also ruled that a Colorado Web site designer can refuse to create a Web site for a same-sex couple on First Amendment grounds.

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in the majority opinion: "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."

We start our coverage again tonight with "NewsHour" Supreme Court analyst Marcia Coyle.

Thank you for being with us.

MARCIA COYLE: Thanks, Geoff.

GEOFF BENNETT: Let's start with the student loan case.

MARCIA COYLE: OK. GEOFF BENNETT: The Supreme Court, voting 6-3 along ideological lines, tossed out President Biden's plan to slash the student debt of more than 40 million people on the grounds that he exceeded his power.

But Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the dissenters, noted that Congress actually authorized the forgiveness plan.

And she adds this: "In every respect, the court today exceeds its proper limited role in our nation's governance."

Break down this ruling for us.

MARCIA COYLE: OK, first, it was the chief justice who wrote the majority opinion.

He looked at what authority the secretary of education had under the HEROES Act to waive or modify student loan provisions.

He examined the meaning of waive or modify.

He looked at how the department used that authority in the past.

And he concluded that those words did not stretch far enough to encompass what the secretary did here, which he said was to create a whole new program, a program that was huge and that was costly.

And that, he said, triggered what the court has called the major questions doctrine.

If there is a federal regulation that has vast economic or political significance, then there has to be clear authorization from Congress.

And he said that was not here.

GEOFF BENNETT: In the other case, the court ruled in favor of a Colorado Web designer who said she wanted to create wedding Web sites without having to provide services for same-sex couples.

And this was a purely hypothetical claim.

She hadn't actually in fact been asked to create such a Web site.

How did the court arrive at its decision?

MARCIA COYLE: OK.

This was really interesting.

You have two very different views of what public accommodation laws, which are really anti-discrimination laws in the marketplace of public goods and services, what they do.

Justice Gorsuch, who wrote the majority opinion, looked at these laws and said, at least in the Web designer's case, that it was compelling her to speak against her religious beliefs and that the First Amendment free speech guarantees trumped public accommodation laws.

Justice Sotomayor, who wrote the dissent said, no, no, no, now wait a minute.

Public accommodation laws have always been viewpoint-neutral, and that's how they are operating here.

They're not compelling any speech.

They're compelling -- they're saying, you just can't act in a certain way to discriminate against protected categories of people.

And the law does say who is protected here.

And so you had just really a very different view of these laws.

GEOFF BENNETT: Well, you mentioned Justice Sotomayor's dissent.

I will read part of it.

She wrote this: "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."

Does this ruling fit at all within recent court precedent?

MARCIA COYLE: Well, mostly, the reliance was on older precedents, either First Amendment precedents or civil rights law precedents.

But the tricky thing here is, Justice Gorsuch said that this opinion applies to expressive speech, expressive conduct, like a Web designer, like a speechwriter, but he really doesn't define what is expressive conduct.

And that's what Justice Sotomayor said is the big hole that's been blown into public accommodation laws, that they are going to allow discrimination in many situations that in the past have not been allowed.

GEOFF BENNETT: Marcia Coyle, we are lucky to be able to draw on your vast experience and insights.

(LAUGHTER) GEOFF BENNETT: Thank you.

MARCIA COYLE: My pleasure, Geoff.

GEOFF BENNETT: Let's focus more now on the court ruling against President Biden's one-time plan to cancel up to $20,000 in federal student loan debt, a decision that affects more than 40 million borrowers.

President Biden addressed the decision speaking at the White House today.

JOE BIDEN, President of the United States: Today's decision has closed one path.

Now we're going to pursue another.

I'm never going to stop fighting for you.

We 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.

It's good for the country.

And it's going to be good for you.

GEOFF BENNETT: Danielle Douglas-Gabriel covers the economics of higher education for The Washington Post.

And she joins us now.

Thank you for being with us.

DANIELLE DOUGLAS-GABRIEL, The Washington Post: Thanks for having me.

GEOFF BENNETT: President Biden said today he thought the court misinterpreted what he was trying to do with the student debt relief.

And he laid out a new path that he says will help as many Americans, but will take a little longer.

What is he aiming to do?

DANIELLE DOUGLAS-GABRIEL: So the president initiated today what's known as the negotiated rulemaking process, whereby the Education Department convenes a committee of legal experts, as well as higher education experts, to weigh in on a draft regulation that would essentially try to achieve exactly what the president did through his executive order, but through a more proven and, I guess, possibly less challengeable legal -- legal route.

The trouble is that many legal experts still suspect that, even if the negotiated rule goes through, is finalized, which would take months, and likely not come into play until next -- late next year, it will still likely face legal challenges.

And we may be starting that process all over again of ending up with another case that heads to the Supreme Court.

GEOFF BENNETT: And is there an expected timeline for this?

How long might this take?

DANIELLE DOUGLAS-GABRIEL: Well, I mean, certainly not within until probably the first quarter or so of next year, if not longer.

Typically, there is a convening of the rule - - of the negotiators.

Then they have to go through various processes of going over draft regulation from the Department of Education, putting in comments, particular changes.

Then a rule is issued, which likely will happen, if we're lucky, if they can get it done by November, then those public comment on that, which could take another couple of months.

And then if they're able to finalize it, by the spring, you could possibly see a rule by following July or so.

But all of that is contingent upon how quickly the Department of Education can kind of bring this process together.

But it's not something that could just be done with a stroke of a pen, which is what lots of lawmakers and activists were hoping to achieve through the executive order that was struck down by the Supreme Court today.

GEOFF BENNETT: We spoke today with people on both sides of this issue.

Here's reaction first from Mike Pierce, executive director of the Student Borrower Protection Center.

MIKE PIERCE, Executive Director, Student Borrower Protection Center: This is devastating for tens of millions of people that depended on President Biden's promise to cancel student debt.

There has been a long movement to get to this point, recognizing that people are struggling under the weight of unaffordable debt and the government needs to do something about it.

I don't want to sugarcoat how meaningful this loss is for working people that have student loans that were depending on this as a way out.

Today is a bad day for student loan borrowers.

GEOFF BENNETT: So, Danielle, what options are left for borrowers in the short term?

DANIELLE DOUGLAS-GABRIEL: So, alongside his announcement of a new route for this policy, the president said he's also trying to give borrowers an additional reprieve as they're slated to resume their student loan payments this October.

Borrowers will have a 12-month grace period.

If they miss payments during that time, it won't ding their credit or hurt their financial standing.

And, certainly, that would be very helpful to millions of Americans who really didn't know how to anticipate the addition or re-addition of this -- of their student loan bills, which, on average, could be as much as $300, if not more, dollars a month for many families.

GEOFF BENNETT: We also spoke with Marc Goldwein.

He's with the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

Here's what he had to say.

MARC GOLDWEIN, Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget: We need a plan to get higher education costs under control and improve quality.

But this is simply a giveaway to college-educated Americans, mostly in the top half of the income spectrum, who already went to college and took out the loans.

It's telling them, you don't have to pay back the money because you're lucky enough to be the 13 percent of Americans that will get a $10,000 or $20,000 check from the federal government.

GEOFF BENNETT: And he also argues that, rather than addressing debt, we should focus on the cost of tuition.

Is there an appetite in Congress right now to do that?

DANIELLE DOUGLAS-GABRIEL: There is.

And you have seen legislation coming from both sides of the aisle trying to address some of the issues of affordability.

There is so much partisan rancor around the issue of financial aid at this moment that it's really difficult to see a bipartisan solution moving forward, but not impossible.

I think you're also seeing from the Department of Education more measures to address accountabilities, making sure that, if students are going to borrow all of this money for an education, that the institutions that's providing it are held accountable for the outcomes, whether they are graduating with too much debt relative to how much they're earning, and really just starting to be more transparent about that.

Is that enough to really address what many families see as the exorbitant costs of college?

Many would say no, but it's a start.

And I think it's something that this administration hopes to build on.

GEOFF BENNETT: Danielle Douglas-Gabriel covers the economics of higher education for The Washington Post.

Danielle, thank you for your time this evening.

We appreciate it.

DANIELLE DOUGLAS-GABRIEL: Of course.