Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Bill to Arm Teachers Passes Tennessee Legislature; Supreme Court to Hear Case About Emergency Abortion Care; Arizona House Expected to Push Through Repeal of Civil War-Era Abortion Law Today; Awaiting Judge's Ruling on Whether Trump Violated Gag Order; Negotiations Between Columbia, Student Protesters Extended 48 Hours. Aired 9-9:30a ET

Aired April 24, 2024 - 09:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[09:00:00]

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: CNN's Nick Valencia is tracking all of this for us and joins us now.

Nick, have you heard anything from the Republican governor about this yet?

NICK VALENCIA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, we did reach out to Bill Lee but he's not gone back to us. But it's clear, Kate, that the Republican-led legislature in Tennessee believes that the remedy for school shootings is to put more guns on campuses and to arm teachers.

The bill's co-sponsors says that there's a lot of misinformation about this legislation, principally, that it's not a requirement for teachers in Tennessee to carry a concealed gun, but rather it gives them the option but only if they reach a series of thresholds, including enhanced carry permit.

They're going to need to get permission from the superintendent, the school principal, as well as the local law enforcement chief, submit a background check, go through 40 hours of school training, among other things.

It's interesting, though, that this legislation comes just about a year after the deadliest school shooting in state history at the Covenant School, that private school in Nashville, and some of the parents of those surviving victims, they oppose this legislation and they could be heard after its passage, saying blood on your hands.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

EMMIE WOLF-DURBIN, PROTESTING TENNESSEE GUN LAW: This is the reaction of rage and anger.

ALLIE PHILLIPS, PROTESTING TENNESSEE GUN LAW: The goal is to get firearms away from schools, not put them in the school.

JERMAINE COLE JR., PROTESTING TENNESSEE GUN LAW: This is ridiculous. Our representatives sold us to lobbyist money. They've sold us out to corporate interest and people who support them financially, and not the actual people.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VALENCIA: Adding to this controversy is that most school employees and the parents would not be notified if they're children's teacher is armed -- Kate.

BOLDUAN: Nick, thank you for the update, and continue to follow this.

A new hour of CNN NEWS CENTRAL starts now.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: We are standing by for arguments at the Supreme Court. Abortion is front and center this morning. Can a state ban an abortion, deny a woman emergency care? Any moment there could be a decision to hold Donald Trump in contempt of court for violating the gag order in the New York criminal case. And President Biden getting ready to sign a bill that could mean the end of TikTok in the United States.

I'm John Berman with Kate Bolduan and Sara Sidner. This is CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

SARA SIDNER, CNN ANCHOR: Happening right now a live look at the Supreme Court where we are standing by for oral arguments on one of the most critical abortion cases since Roe versus Wade was overturned, one that could end the life-or-death medical care stripped away for millions of American women.

At issue specifically next hour is whether or not ER doctors in Idaho -- this is a state that has a near total abortion ban -- will be permanently forced to refuse to provide emergency abortions to pregnant women even when they know the woman's condition could become life-threatening. The decision set to reverberate across the nation as several states enforce similar bans to Idaho.

CNN's Joan Biskupic is live now outside of the Supreme Court as they prepare to listen to the opening arguments.

Walk us through what the arguments will be here to the justices in the next hour.

JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN SUPREME COURT ANALYST: Sure. Sarah, good to see you, and people are filing into the courtroom as we speak now. And this case brings us right back to where we were two years ago when the Supreme Court overturned nearly a half century of abortion rights and states like Idaho immediately put into place abortion bans.

Idaho's ban says no woman can terminate a pregnancy in the state unless her actual life is being threatened. Soon after that reversal of Roe v. Wade, Attorney General Merrick Garland put out a statement that reminded everyone of a federal law called the Emergency Medical Act Law that applies to emergency rooms and would require any woman who would come there with pregnancy complications to get emergency care to stabilize her health, even if it didn't -- even if her death was not imminent. It would be serious life-threatening -- not life-threatening

situations, health threatening situations like rupture of a membrane, infection, a serious infection, near organ failure. That's the kind of medical emergencies that are kind of right in the gap here of what the federal government says should be covered in emergency rooms and that Idaho says should not be covered.

Up first, Sara, will be Joshua Turner, representing the state of Idaho, arguing that federal law does not preempt state law here, that the state still governs what goes on in the emergency room. Up next will be solicitor general Elizabeth Prelogar saying in serious emergency situations is federal law has to take effect. Women have to be guaranteed that their health will be preserved if they have serious complications in pregnancy -- Sara.

SIDNER: Joan Biskupic, right outside of court.

[09:05:02]

We're also looking if you see there on the screen as the protesters are asserting to gather in much larger numbers so far. Opening arguments begin in just less than an hour, and this isn't the only place that is discussing this very volatile issue -- Kate.

BOLDUAN: It's absolutely the right. We're also watching Arizona right now where the chaotic fight takes, (INAUDIBLE) there takes a new turn over abortion access and that Civil War-era abortion ban in Arizona. After false starts last week, a major hurdle could now be cleared.

CNN's Natasha Chen. She's in Phoenix for us tracking all of this.

And Natasha, Arizona statehouse lawmakers last week they failed twice to push, kind of to make progress on repealing this ban but that could change today. What are you learning?

NATASHA CHEN, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Kate, a Republican source tells me there are now votes to make this happen at this week, even though it didn't happen last week, as you mentioned. There is a razor thin majority for Republicans in both chambers here. So Democrats need two Republicans to vote with them for this repeal happen. I'm being told they now have enough to first bypass the procedural hurdle, then the repeal itself.

Now if they do this, that doesn't mean that the law is repealed immediately. It still has to go over to the Senate side. They are expected to pass the repeal, then it would go to the governor's desk. That could all happen by early May. But if they fail to repeal this law, the earliest it can go into effect is June 8th.

And just to remind people, this law dates back to 1864. It bans nearly all abortions except in the case of saving the life of the mother. It carries a prison sentence for providers two to five years. And until June 8th the law that's in effect right now is actually a 15-week abortion ban that Arizona passed in 2022. Also does not carry any exceptions for rape or incest. The Republicans would like to focus, though, on the fact that there is

a November ballot initiative by abortion rights advocates to try to enshrine abortion rights into the state's Constitution. They are going to meet today to try to make progress on introducing their own counter ballot initiative -- Kate.

BOLDUAN: All right. A lot of action going to happen in there. Thank you so much, Natasha. John?

BERMAN: All right, with us now, constitutional law professor at the John J. College of Criminal Justice, Gloria Browne-Marshall, author of "She Took Justice: The Black Woman Law in Power 1619-1969." Also with us Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center.

Gloria, let me just start with you. The Supreme Court hearing arguments tangentially related to this Idaho case today. What are you watching for now? Almost every time the Supreme Court hears an abortion case post-Dobbs.

GLORIA BROWNE-MARSHALL, AUTHOR, "SHE TOOK JUSTICE": I think I'm going to be listening for whether or not the Supreme Court is wrestling with the health of a mother versus the life of the mother. And what we have are fathers and mothers, parents on the Supreme Court. And when you're talking about the life of the mother, that means that a doctor has to wait to see if the woman's health deteriorates to a point where her life is indeed in danger as opposed to her being in the situation in which she could have a lifelong disability, such as a stroke if she's not given that termination of pregnancy at that moment.

So I think I'm going to be really listening for their concern as human beings, as well as where the federal and state law stands. Federalism is the balance of power between the state and the federal government. And there's always a balance going on about power. But I think that you're going to be human beings as well as lawyers listening to these arguments.

BERMAN: Jeffrey, the Dobbs decision essentially put questions of abortion back to the states. If the Supreme Court does anything here, does that put some federal guard rails on the issue of abortion again?

JEFFREY ROSEN, PROFESSOR, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL: It could. The question is whether the federal government can establish a baseline of care and federal law trumps state law to the contrary, and the claim here is that a federal law that requires that emergency rooms provider provide all necessary treatment includes care for abortion.

Now it could be that the justices will say that you need a clear statement from Congress before you can cover abortion. And that's the claim of the abortion opponents here in the Idaho case. They said that the law doesn't speak clearly and therefore it shouldn't be interpreted to cover abortion.

It has huge consequences because if the justices narrow this law as Idaho wants and say it merely requires equal treatment, in other words, Idaho only has to provide the abortion treatment that it provides to all other women, which is namely zero, that's basically deferring to state law about what the baseline of care is, which is not consistent with the general principle of federalism that national law trumps.

[09:10:14]

So it's hugely significant. The Arizona case shows these are both laws that were passed in the 1800s, the 1864 in Arizona, 1890. These laws are springing back to life and the question is, who's going to have the final word? The federal government, the voters of the state in an initiative of the legislature? The bottom line is these extreme abortion bans are not popular even in the reddest states as Arizona shows.

And when they're submitted to a vote of legislators there, the people today, they tend to get over overturned.

BERMAN: The only vote that matters is going to be the vote in the Supreme Court, at least on this issue right now. So in 20 seconds or less, each of you, I want you to predict where you think the Supreme Court will try to base this decision.

Gloria, first to you.

BROWNE-MARSHALL: I'm going to say the power is going to have to be with supremacy of the federal law and that they're going to say that the state cannot say is just when a woman's life is in danger.

BERMAN: Jeffrey, to you, this is the court that overturned Dobbs. Where do you think they want to be here? I mean, overturned Roe.

ROSEN: As Gloria says, they do care about federal supremacy and don't want to have states totally resisting federal law. But they may also say there's no conflict here and try to avoid a direct clash between the federal government and the states will have a better sense after the oral argument this morning.

BERMAN: Again, and that is why we're all going to hear those and we're going to be paying very close attention to the way the justices ask their questions.

Gloria Browne-Mashall, Jeffrey Rosen, thanks so much for being with us.

CNN's special coverage of the oral arguments before the Supreme Court, they will start in just a few minutes at the top of the hour -- Sara.

SIDNER: All right. Ahead, if the judge decides Donald Trump violated a gag order, there's a very, very small chance he might put the former president in jail. The Secret Service is getting ready just in case that happens.

Also, after a tense night of standoffs, administrators at Columbia University are giving pro-Palestinian protesters two additional days to negotiate breaking down their encampment. We have the very latest from campus.

And the clock ticking on TikTok. Today, President Biden set to sign the bill that would force China-based owner to sell the app or face a nationwide ban. We'll discuss.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:17:07]

SIDNER: You're losing all credibility with the court. It's not what any lawyer wants to hear from a judge, but it's exactly what the judge in Donald Trump's criminal hush money trial told Trump's attorney during a heated clash over whether the former president has violated the court's gag order multiple times.

We are here waiting, of course, for that ruling in the case. It is not clear yet what, if any, consequences Donald Trump may face for the 10 alleged violations that prosecutors say warrant fines.

Joining us now, CNN legal analyst, Jennifer Rodgers, and Elliott Williams with us as well.

Good to see you both.

Jennifer, I'll begin with you. You're standing here with me. The court is not -- this case is not going today. But how soon might we get this gag order, which will just be put out into the public record, correct?

JENNIFER RODGERS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes. I think we'll get it soon probably today. I think the judge will write up a short order, which is why we haven't seen it yet. But there's no reason to wait especially because Trump continues to violate the gag order yesterday, the day before. So I think the judge will want to get it out quickly.

SIDNER: We'll talk about that right now. You know, Donald Trump, you know, went to talk to WPVI, one of our CNN affiliates, and he started talking about one of the witnesses again, the same witness, his former attorney, Michael Cohen. Here's what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Michael Cohen is a convicted liar and he's got no credibility whatsoever. He was a lawyer and you rely on your lawyers but Michael Cohen was a convicted liar. He was a lawyer for many people, not just me, then he got in trouble because of things outside of what he did for me.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SIDNER: Elliott, this was not brought up in court. It's happening afterwards. Is this another violation of the order and can the judge look at this even though it wasn't brought up in court as another potential fine or worse?

ELLIOTT WILLIAMS, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Well -- that you. Certainly even if the judge doesn't choose a look at it, I bet you the prosecutors will bring it to the judge's attention. Now the Michael Cohen world of statements, and there are many, many of them, are in a slightly different class than some other statements that the president has made, because of the fact that there actually is back-and-forth sniping happening in the press between the former president and Michael Cohen that the president, at least has an argument of saying that all he's doing is responding to the criticism.

Now prosecutors will come back and say you started, you know, these comments long before Michael Cohen said anything. It's far less of a gray area, these statements, and there's at least one statement where the former president tweeted something directly attacking the jury pool and that is one that the judge will almost certainly reference in any order that he writes because there's literal little justification for a statement like that.

But some of these other statements that sort of step into that, or at least flirt with being First Amendment protected speech, I think are just going to be a tougher call for the judge to sort through.

[09:20:00]

SIDNER: You just talked about what could be a legitimate argument for the defense in the gag order case when it comes to Michael Cohen. How would you see that playing out? I mean, what would that argument be and what might the judge do that, expand the gag order at everyone, like how would that work?

RODGERS: That's a great question. I mean, he could expand the gag order. I think he's going to make some decisions here about how he wants to slice and dice this. I suspect he will find some violations out of the 10 that the prosecutors are seeking and not others. He will find for the ones that he does fine. He'll give stern warnings to the defendant, Donald Trump, but he's in a tough position because he doesn't have a lot of options if he's not willing to send Donald Trump to jail. And I don't think that he is, at least not right now.

SIDNER: The gag order is one small part of this case. The overarching case. There's a lot that has happened already with one of the key witnesses here. We heard from the first and very key witness, David Pecker, the former publisher of the "Enquirer" who is on the stand talking about conversations that he had with Donald Trump to help Trump's campaign and hurt Trump's opponents.

Here's some of what transpired during court. Pecker said, and I'm going to pull this up here, as he's talking to Trump, he said, "Anything I hear on the marketplace, if I hear anything negative about yourself or if I hear anything about women selling stories, I would notify Michael Cohen," who was then Donald Trump's fixer and personal attorney, "as I did over the last several years." And the prosecutor say, OK. So they would not get published, you mean? And he responds, yes. So they wouldn't get published. Yes.

Jennifer, why is it so important for prosecutors to show this was all about keeping negative information about Donald Trump away from potential voters. SIDNER: So the way they've charged this case is the falsified

financial documents, but it gets a bump up to a felony if that was -- if another crime was committed to cover up the crime, right? So it's important for them to prove this election interference conspiracy. And that's what they do with David Pecker. So all of this testimony about this is what we would do, if we learned something that could damage his candidacy, and that was explicit in this meeting that they had, it's all about the election, then we would kill that story.

So that's what they're proving with this testimony. It also has the side benefit of dirtying up the defendant a bit, totally legitimately because it does go to this critical issue that they have to prove. But it's disgusting what they did about false statement, false stories that they would plant about his opponents. And so you kind of get this side benefit of the jury thinking, wow, that's really dirty play that the defendant was engaged in with David Pecker.

SIDNER: In the political world Donald Trump is always talking about things being rigged. But in this case, this was something being rigged in his favor.

I do want to ask you, Elliot, you know, as we go forward, Pecker is going to continue to take the stand. What are we expecting to hear on Thursday because some of the salacious details of this case haven't even come out in front of the jury yet, correct?

WILLIAMS: Yes, absolutely. And the most valuable thing David Pecker can do is bring the jurors into the room with the former president and Michael Cohen and Hope Hicks actually was in this August 2015 meeting. Hope Hicks, the former White House staffer. You know, there's no science to setting up the order of witnesses at a trial and prosecutors put somebody on who is a compelling witness who doesn't have a lot of sort of personal baggage, no matter how salacious the story is.

But it's a good witness to start with. And I think you are getting the first-hand accounting of somebody who spoke with the former president directly, the defendant directly, about the scheme as alleged by prosecutors. And so I think they will use David Pecker to lay the groundwork for explaining exactly these kinds of financial transactions that Jennifer was talking about just a moment ago.

SIDNER: Elliot Williams, always excellent. Jennifer Rodgers, appreciate you both being here to analyze this as this court case continues. All right, thank you so much. Kate?

BOLDUAN: Today, the House speaker is headed to New York to speak to Jewish students at Columbia University and pro-Palestinian protests there enter an eighth day are the administration there had said a midnight deadline to start breaking down that encampment.

What's happening? That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:28:54]

BERMAN: This morning after initially issuing a midnight deadline, Columbia University extended negotiations with protesters for the next 48 hours to dismantle the pro-Palestinian encampment on campus. Now protests, of course, have spread across the entire country. Today, House Speaker Mike Johnson announced he will visit Columbia to meet with Jewish students and speak on what he calls, quote, "The troubling rise of virulent antisemitism on America's college campuses."

CNN's Omar Jimenez is live just outside the Columbia campus this morning.

And for the first time, Omar, we are seeing a few protesters behind you.

OMAR JIMENEZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, we're seeing a few protests, but critically these are ones that are happening off Columbia's campus. So as you see them behind me, this could be some students, but also could not be students. That has been the critical difference for those that have happened off-campus. But regardless, it is another pro-Palestine protests that we have seen in contrast with the encampment led protests that we have been seeing on campus and now enter an eighth day.

But you can see, of course, the small group that's gathered here. But also, if you look up, you can see the sign "Free Palestine." That is from on campus. So that would have been placed there from folks that are on campus at this point. We spoke to -- we've been speaking to students over the past few days and one of those --

[09:30:00]