Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Iran Talks Stalled?; Supreme Court Reaffirms Birthright Citizenship. Aired 1-1:30p ET

Aired June 30, 2026 - 13:00   ET

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

[13:00:02]

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: The Supreme Court delivering its opinion on a critical case deciding who gets to be a U.S. citizen, also sending a message to President Trump.

Plus: overwhelmed by a disaster. Hospitals and doctors in Venezuela coping with the aftermath of last week's earthquakes, racing to save as many lives as they can, the death toll currently standing at 1,700.

ERICA HILL, CNN HOST: A lawmaker's announcement ending a mystery on Capitol Hill. House Republican Tom Kean says he is being -- been treated for depression.

We're following these major developing stories and many more all coming in right here to CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

SANCHEZ: We start this afternoon with breaking news, the Supreme Court rejecting President Trump's effort to end birthright citizenship.

Chief Justice John Roberts siding with the liberals and conservative Justices Barrett and Kavanaugh in a 6-3 ruling to uphold the 14th Amendment's guarantee that children born on U.S. soil are U.S. citizens.

HILL: And just moments ago, we heard from President Trump, posting his first public reaction, in which he writes -- quote -- "The Supreme Court upheld birthright citizenship, which is too bad for our country, but we can easily make it up in Congress through legislation," going on to say: "No long and unwieldy constitutional amendment is necessary. Congress should start today."

Let's bring in CNN chief Supreme Court analyst Joan Biskupic, senior legal analyst Elie Honig.

So,, let's start off. We just got that reaction, as I noted from President Trump.

Joan, you were in the room when the opinion was read. What was that moment like?

JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN CHIEF SUPREME COURT ANALYST: In some ways, I expected it, because this was such a radical proposal by President Trump. This is -- birthright citizenship is such a part of American identity.

As John Roberts said from the bench today, it comes from our English heritage. It was part of common law there. It's been entrenched in the United States, not just with the 14th Amendment in 1868, where it explicitly says anyone born here is an American, but even leading up to that, that was always the understanding.

So, in some ways, it was predictable. And I could feel that the chief justice, who is desperately trying to make it look like there it -- there are not tensions among the justices and that there's no major conflict with President Trump, tried to do it matter-of-factly, saying, we break no new ground here. This is the way it's always been. This is the way it will be.

But, clearly, when you see these opinions, then, his written opinion was only 26 pages. Clarence Thomas' was 91 pages. He had three dissenters. We had been watching earlier to see if the chief justice of the United States could maybe pull together this court for this dramatic moment, and he wasn't able to.

But it still was -- you know, they saved it for the last day. There was such anticipation in the courtroom and inside and outside the court, and I think we have to think of this as a historic day. And with President Trump claiming that this can be reserved reversed in some way by Congress, no, this is one thing that John Roberts made clear.

This is a constitutional declaration that was made today.

SANCHEZ: Elie, on that note, Kavanaugh agreed with the outcome of this decision, but his argument was more nuanced than that. And it seemed like President Trump read into it his saying that you don't need a constitutional amendment to upend birthright citizenship.

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: I completely agree with Joan Biskupic. I completely disagree with President Trump, respectfully, on this particular issue.

If you're talking about a constitutional provision, you can't just amend your way around this. By the way, liberals make this argument in a way that I also think is wrong. Liberals will say, well, Congress can pass a law that narrows the pardon power.

No, they cannot. You would have to amend the Constitution to do that. Liberals have also suggested, well, you can just pass a law, Congress can pass a law that would put term limits on Supreme Court justices, rather than life tenure. Again, no, you can't. You have to go through the amendment process, which is virtually impossible at this point.

There are -- let me just say, there are some, I don't know if I would call them scholars, more advocates, that do say, well, you can just legislate these things. I just saw an article by a think tank that said you can just legislate around this decision.

I strongly disagree with that. To the ruling itself, as Joan said, this is a monumental ruling, I think a clear one. But we also cannot underestimate how much fear and uncertainty Donald Trump's executive order, which is now a year-and-a-half old, cast over millions of people in this country.

It would have only applied moving forward, but it would have shed doubt on the citizenship status of millions of children born in this country. And now we're back to the original principle from 1868. If you're born here, you're a citizen. It doesn't matter who your parents are.

HILL: You talk about it shedding doubt. Justice Thomas actually wrote that this opinion today devalues citizenship.

BISKUPIC: It's interesting, his take.

[13:05:00]

Now, remember where Justice Thomas is coming from. He was only the second African-American ever appointed to the Supreme Court. He's the only black man on the court, of course, Ketanji Brown Jackson, a black woman on the court.

And over the course of those 91 pages, Erica, he talked about the history of the 14th Amendment, essentially through the eyes of the freed slaves, that this was -- this was something that he saw, the 14th Amendment, was guaranteeing a right to black Americans who had been denied that with the notorious Dred Scott decision of 1857.

And he latched on to that history and said what the 14th Amendment did when it said that anyone born here would automatically have birthright citizenship, he said that was designed for blacks. That was to suddenly give it to them, not suddenly give it to people who have no connection, no allegiance to the United States, who weren't in some ways part of a reciprocal kind of partnership that you're born here and you pledge some sort of allegiance.

He was saying that the allegiance part, anyone who's on -- comes here undocumented, doesn't have citizenship, doesn't have any kind of permanent status, this would not apply to them.

SANCHEZ: The definition of domicile playing key into Thomas' argument there.

BISKUPIC: Right.

SANCHEZ: Elie, noticeably, Trump did get two wins at the court today, first on the court ruling that states can ban transgender athletes in girls' sports, which we will cover later on this afternoon.

They also lifted spending caps for political campaigns, and President Trump celebrated that -- quote -- "as a big win for Republicans, and more importantly the First Amendment."

Walk us through what the court actually ruled.

HONIG: Yes, so on -- let's start with the transgender case, first of all.

So the court ruled that states may pass laws and enact laws that ban transgender athletes from participating in women's and girls' sports. About half the states in the nation have already done that, but it is not a nationwide ban. It will be up to each individual state.

Now, on the second case about campaign expenditures, so this ruling was basically that political committees, primarily the RNC and DNC, but also state and local committees, they can spend now an unlimited amount in coordination with candidates. So that's the change right there.

There used to be limits on how much the DNC or RNC could spend in coordination with candidates. Other than that, it had to be separate. You couldn't talk to the candidate, what do you want this ad to look like? Now it's just a free-for-all.

Now the candidates coordinate, can walk over to the DNC and RNC, work out a campaign and have the DNC or RNC pay for it with no limitations. I don't know that it's so much a victory for Republicans or Democrats.

BISKUPIC: Well, I will tell you who it's a victory for, again for Clarence Thomas. This ruling today reversed a decision from 25 years ago where the justices had upheld that kind of limit, and Clarence Thomas had written a very provocative dissent that today Brett Kavanaugh picked up and took a dissenting opinion and turned it into the majority.

HILL: It's a loser for anyone who really does not enjoy the political ads.

(LAUGHTER)

HILL: Because you think you're inundated now, my friend, just you wait.

HONIG: You haven't had enough?

SANCHEZ: They pay the bills, guys. They do pay the bills. Just saying.

(LAUGHTER)

HILL: Fair point, but...

(LAUGHTER)

HILL: Thank you both.

Also joining us now, Jose Antonio Vargas. He's a Pulitzer Prize- winning journalist, a formerly undocumented immigrant. He's also the author of "Dear America: Notes of an Undocumented Citizen" and the founder of Define American.

It's good to have you with us this afternoon.

When you look at this birthright citizenship decision, what in your eyes does this change?

Jose, I am not able to hear you. I'm just going to -- can -- stand by. We're going to try to fix that. We're going to try to get that up and running again for Jose Antonio Vargas, a lot more to discuss, obviously, this hour.

We're also keeping a close watch on Venezuela. We can tell you, more miraculous rescues to report. It has now been nearly one week since those back-to-back once-in-a-century earthquakes. We are live this hour in Caracas.

Plus, President Trump's son-in-law and senior adviser arriving in the Middle East for peace talks. They are not, however, meeting with Iranian officials, despite what President Trump said. We will bring you up to speed on those negotiations.

And a Republican congressman reveals what is behind the mysterious four-month absence.

That and much more ahead right here on CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:14:00]

HILL: Returning to our breaking news, the Supreme Court upholding birthright citizenship in a 6-3 decision.

Jose Antonio Vargas is back with us after some technical issues. We're pretty sure we have them fixed. He's a former Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, former undocumented immigrant.

Jose, it's good to have you with us this hour.

What do you believe, if anything, this decision changes?

JOSE ANTONIO VARGAS, FOUNDER AND PRESIDENT, DEFINE AMERICAN: I think what this changes is, the Supreme Court just defined who an American in this country is. If you're born in America, you're American. This should have never been up for debate.

Children born in America are American. That was true yesterday. It is true today. It will be true tomorrow. And even President Trump's handpicked Supreme Court cannot deny that reality.

HILL: You say this defined citizenship, but the president posting just a short time ago, calling this too bad for our country, but then going on to say: "We can easily make it up in Congress through legislation with the support of the president," saying "this has been determined during the process. There's no long and unwieldy constitutional amendment that's necessary."

[13:15:00]

Speaker Johnson said, we will deal with it as a Congress.

Are you concerned that this definition will not hold?

VARGAS: Well, yes, I am concerned because the reality is, this has been a decade-long attack that President Trump and Stephen Miller, this is a project they have been working on for more than a decade now, trying to denaturalize people, attacking immigrants.

But this is where I think, look, the midterms are coming. If you're a U.S. citizen, if you can vote, please make sure that you vote. Please make sure you participate. I think that's what this is telling me.

HILL: You have documented, and I would encourage people to read, in pieces your journey, your path to citizenship.

VARGAS: Yes.

HILL: In his dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote, in part, "I am not sure today's opinion will stand the test of time," saying, "The citizenship clause added greatly to the dignity and glory of American citizenship," and that "today's opinion devalues that citizenship."

What's your response? Do you feel your citizenship is devalued?

VARGAS: Well, first of all, I actually am in a temporary nonimmigrant status. So I'm not a citizen. Even though I have lived in this country for almost 33 years, I'm still not a U.S. citizen.

I cannot think of a more important concept and a more important value than citizenship. You know, as we celebrate July 4 this weekend, I actually think what happened today in the Supreme Court is a cause for celebration. I totally agree with Justice Thomas that citizenship is incredibly important.

And I would think, I would hope, and I know that children of immigrants who are here, who are born here, are U.S. citizens value that citizenship. And I hope that we all figure out a way to participate, that we have to be engaged.

HILL: There are some who would consider this outcome actually a win for the Trump administration, in the sense that this has really mainstreamed this debate over birthright citizenship.

How do you view that debate in this moment?

VARGAS: Well, I actually agree with you on that.

I interviewed Cecillia Wang, who's the lawyer who argued against President Trump in the Supreme Court. And she told me in the interview that he actually did not think -- this is Cecillia saying that he didn't think he would accomplish this. But the goal was to shift the center of mainstream public opinion and make what was once a very extreme, fringe view and right at the center.

And I think the Trump administration, I think Stephen Miller accomplished that. Now, however, when we talk about the American people, the American public, I think now we have to say, wait a second, like, who -- this is why I'm talking about July 4 this weekend, right?

Like, I think every community, every neighborhood is going to celebrate, that's my neighbor, that's my fellow American, that person belongs here. I think those are the kind of celebrations that we should be having.

HILL: Jose Antonio Vargas, appreciate your perspective. Thanks for being with us.

VARGAS: Thank you for having me.

HILL: Boris.

SANCHEZ: We're watching some incredible scenes of survival in Venezuela. Six days after the country's most powerful earthquake in more than a century, rescuers pulled a 3-year-old boy from the rubble.

Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(CHEERING)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: You hear the joy in their voices, but these moments are happening as the true scale of the devastation remains unknown. Scores of people are still missing, and now 10,000 body bags are being prepared, according to the U.N.

The Venezuelan government has confirmed more than 1,700 were killed, another 5,000 injured.

CNN's Mary Triny Mena joins us with the latest from Venezuela.

Mary, thanks for being with us.

What are you seeing where you are?

MARY TRINY MENA, CNN REPORTER: Boris, that joy that you mentioned is shared by many people, not only in Venezuela, but around the world.

This at this point is a global effort to find more people alive, even though the -- we are coming -- entering almost a week since the two earthquakes took place. Right now, I am in the Parque del Este, which is some sort of a -- it is a park, like a public park in Venezuela.

You could -- it is the equivalent of the Central Park in New York. It's now become a tent city. Here are people that miss everything, that basically lost everything during the earthquakes, are coming here, and they are using these tents in order to, well, stay with their families.

We spoke to some of them. And they told us they lost everything. They have to run. Some of them are from La Guaira, but others are from the capital, Caracas, which was also affected by the two earthquakes. There are many buildings that are uninhabitable right now. They cannot live there anymore.

[13:20:06]

So they came here. They receive medicine, food, things that they need, even blankets, because they lost everything. Right now, we are in this area where they receive medical attention, psychological attention. And, of course, this is huge effort for many volunteers that are coming here and bringing their foods and medicines.

SANCHEZ: And, Mary, we learned earlier that more than 100 Venezuelans, including children, were deported from the U.S. and taken to La Guaira just hours before these two earthquakes struck. They're now missing after their hotel collapsed. What are you learning about them?

It looks like we're having some issues getting connected to Mary. We will leave the conversation there and get more information to you as we get it.

Mary Triny Mena, thank you so much from Caracas.

Coming up: U.S. negotiators are participating in high-level talks today in Qatar, but not meeting with Iranians, as the president said would happen. What we know about where these talks stand right now.

And a bomb attack targeting a Ukrainian-born tycoon, a manhunt now under way in Monaco. We have the latest. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:25:59]

HILL: President Trump's Iran negotiators Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner are in Qatar today, but they're not meeting with Iranian officials, despite President Trump claiming they would.

Instead, they will be meeting with the Qatari prime minister. Now, tomorrow, delegations from the U.S. and Iran are expected to separately engage in technical talks with mediators from Qatar and Pakistan. These lower-level talks come just days after the U.S. and Iran, of course, exchanged fire, and as Iran insisted it will not only control the Strait of Hormuz, but be solely responsible for demining the critical waterway.

CNN's Nic Robertson joins us now.

So, Nic, we are now more than two weeks into this essentially 60-day countdown on these talks. It doesn't appear there has been much movement. Where do things stand?

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: Yes, indeed, over the weekend, with those strikes, it looked like things were taking a step backwards.

They have stabilized again now, and that does seem to be the trend as we have seen going through the talks around the memorandum of understanding. They were late getting started. They sort of broke up earlier than most people expected. But the deal was left in place, and that seems to be where we are today.

Clearly, what happens in the Strait of Hormuz, getting Iran to move those mines and remove them completely, getting them to back away from any intimidation that they have been putting in play to make sure that ships use their routes through the Strait of Hormuz, that they go through their management system, though they have agreed not to put tolls in for the next 60 days, all of these things are uncertainties.

All of these things are supposed to be hammered out in the technical talks. I mean, what -- so that's clearly going to be part of the agenda we would expect between Steve Witkoff, Jared Kushner, and the Qataris, the mediators.

But on the Iranian side, we know that they're s prioritizing here or saying that the one of the big elements for them is going to be talking about their frozen assets. And, again, this is a topic that we know is still controversial. It's in the memorandum of understanding.

But the vice president just a week or so ago in Switzerland said that the Iranians would only get those frozen assets if the Qataris and the White House gave the say-so, and then that money would only be used to purchase agricultural projects from the -- products from the United States, which would then go to the Iranian people.

The Iranians bulked at that as well. So there is so much misunderstanding. So the fact the clock is ticking, clearly, that lack of clarity hasn't been brought into play yet around the MOU. I think it just indicates how tough this is going to be, how likely there's going to be for an overrun of time, and the real possibility that things get off-tracked again by tit-for-tat strikes.

HILL: You talk about the lack of clarity. It would not be the first time we had heard from President Trump that it was Iran who was actually asking for the meeting, Iran pushing back on that, which would not be the first time that something was put out by the president or the administration that then was pushed back on.

What is your sense from those involved and your sources about how this is impacting the potential for some positive movement in these talks?

ROBERTSON: You know, I think they're just hoping and trying to keep it on track.

Sources emphasized to me last night that this was going to be a technical-level meeting, not at the high level. The Qatari prime minister was asked that question in a press conference today, and he stressed a high-level meeting has the senior players in.

And I think we all would have thought Jared Kushner, Steve Witkoff were high-level players. I think, when they were being sent by the president to Qatar for these meetings, whatever shape the meetings were going to be in, we thought this was going to be high level. But the mediators on all sides, the Qataris, the Pakistanis, are

playing this -- playing this down, if you will, talking about it as technical level.