Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Any Moment, Supreme Court Expected to Release Opinions; House Democrats Want Answers from Roberts on Supreme Court Ethics; One Week Until Biden and Trump Face Off in CNN Debate. Aired 10-10:30a ET

Aired June 20, 2024 - 10:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:00:00]

JIM ACOSTA, CNN ANCHOR: Good morning. You're alive in the CNN Newsroom. I'm Jim Acosta in Washington.

We do have breaking news at this hour. At any moment, the Supreme Court is expected to release opinions that could have a profound impact on American lives and American democracy. We're standing by for what could be one of the most consequential rulings in U.S. history, a decision Justice Gorsuch calls a, quote, rule for the ages, the question, whether a former president enjoys immunity from prosecution and is, in effect, above the law. That ruling could drop in just minutes.

We're also awaiting a number of other major decisions from the justices, among them, a case challenging the prosecution of January 6th defendants. That opinion could throw out some of the criminal charges against Donald Trump.

Plus, just days ahead of the two-year anniversary of the decision that overturned Roe v. Wade, another crucial case for women's reproductive rights. It could determine whether pregnant women experiencing a medical emergency have the right to an abortion. And we're standing by for an opinion that could give domestic abusers the right to own a firearm.

Here with me now is Yale Law and Political Science Professor Akhil Reed Amar. He's also the author of The Words That Made Us, America's Constitutional Conversation.

And, Akhil, we have been waiting for some time for this immunity decision to come down. And I do want to play what the conservative justices on the court have said about the law applying to people from the president on down during their confirmation hearings and here they are in their own words.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JUSTICE NEIL GORSUCH, U.S. SUPREME COURT: No man is above the law.

CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS, U.S. SUPREME COURT: I believe that no one is above the law under our under our system, and that includes the president. The president is fully bound by the law, the Constitution and statutes.

GORSUCH: No man is above the law.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you believe the president has the power to curtail investigations, for example, by the Department of Justice? Justice is under him.

JUSTICE SAMUEL ALITO, U.S. SUPREME COURT: I don't think the president is above the law.

GORSUCH: No man is above the law, Senator.

JUSTICE BRETT KAVANAUGH, U.S. SUPREME COURT: No one is above the law in our constitutional system.

No matter your position in government, it's all equal justice under law.

GORSUCH: Nobody is above the law in this country, and that includes the president of the United States.

JUSTICE AMY CONEY BARRETT, U.S. SUPREME COURT: I know that both Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh said that no man is above the law, and I agree with that. No one is above the law.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ACOSTA: Many of those justices also said Roe was the law of the land before overturning it. Professor, let's talk about this immunity decision that may or may not come down today. A lot of folks feel like it won't come down. But what do you make of what the justices are saying there in that montage? I mean, it -- and the fact that we've been waiting for some time now for this immunity decision.

AKHIL REED AMAR, LAW AND POLITICAL SCIENCE PROFESSOR: They're absolutely right. The Constitution doesn't say that there's anything special about ex-presidents. And no founder said so. George Washington never said that, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson. They did say, some of them, that while they're in office, they shouldn't be lightly messed with because they have to do the people's business. But that argument that they did put forth was always, and when we're out of office, we're going to be accountable just like everyone else. That's actually what the founders said. If it was anything other than that, the Constitution should have said so clearly, the founders should have said so clearly, because that's as they say in law, a big elephant, and elephants don't hide in mouse holes.

So, if there was some general immunity for ex-presidents or ex- officers, we should have expected to see that in the text of the Constitution or the conversation. This is an originalist argument. When the Constitution ratified, we don't see that at all. So, I'm with those folks who say they're just like everyone else when they're out of office.

ACOSTA: So that would be a big surprise to you if for some reason a decision came down with some new special carve-out for the President of the United States or an ex-president. And it's been months since we heard these oral arguments. It was late April.

AMAR: But it was the last case heard, and they've got other cases. And so I think it will probably be the last case out at the end of this month, maybe even early July. And there may be some wrinkles.

[10:05:01]

Gee, shouldn't ex-presidents at the very least have their lawsuits paid for if they're being sued for what they did in office, you know, get taxpayer funding or something, or some special access to federal courts. Congress can pass special rules also protecting ex-presidents and other officials from being discriminated against in various ways.

So, there may be some little wrinkles, that no one's above the law, but it is true that the law for presidents in certain ways is distinctive.

ACOSTA: And we should note to our viewers at any moment now, we expect to have some new information about decisions, rulings coming down from the high court. But let's continue this conversation, Professor, while we're waiting for that to come in. It looks like you're looking at your SCOTUS blog, refreshing, looking at something that apparently may be coming down right now.

But just to continue this conversation on immunity, just for another moment, USA versus Nixon was decided a lot sooner, a lot faster than this one.

AMAR: Well, some people say that, but the oral argument in that case actually occurred, I believe, on July 8th 1974. That was after all the other cases have been decided. Usually the Supreme Court gets out of dodge, gets out of town, end of June, beginning of July, definitely before July 4th. They came back into special session, back then in order to hear that the Trump -- the Nixon tapes case, excuse me, and that was the only case that they had. So, of course, they're going to be able to do that more quickly. We still have close to I think now, as of this nanosecond, 21 cases yet to be decided, and that's including, you know, I'm not counting the one that just came down three minutes ago.

ACOSTA: Yes, the Supreme Court upholding a Trump-era tax on overseas investments and rejecting an argument from a Washington State couple in a case that could have jeopardized existing tax provisions and torpedoed talk of a wealth tax, 7-2 majority upheld the tax. What stands out to you with this decision?

AMAR: Well, I'm just taking a look at it right now as it's popping on the screen. I actually wrote an amicus brief in the case for the winning side, a bottom line. And if our audience is actually interested in all the details, this is actually -- it seems technical, but the big issue lurking in the background of the case is whether we could ever have a wealth tax in America if Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders had their way.

But what's being upheld here is a broad understanding, correctly so, of the tax power, and the big winner today is Alexander Hamilton, because he devised a broad tax power. He argued a case, the Supreme Court, the most important case -- the only case he ever argued before John Marshall, his chief justice, Claude Hilton. And I'm just looking at the opinion right now. They're actually talking about the Hilton case, which is in this amicus brief. If our audience wants to see more, I've got a free podcast they can listen to it.

ACOSTA: Very good. And what about the emergency abortion care case? We could see that decision come down.

AMAR: Even today. They're not done for today. The first case has come down. They tend to space them out every ten minutes. And so, we could see I'm guessing two, maybe even three other cases just today, at least one more probably, but maybe two or three.

ACOSTA: We're coming up on the two-year anniversary of the Dobbs decision, and we saw the medication abortion decision come out last week. This emergency abortion care ruling could have major implications, though, depending on where the justice has come down.

AMAR: It's a statutory interpretation case. And, of course, women's health is hugely important. So, the mere fact that it's not a constitutional case doesn't mean it's not life or death, literally, for some folks. So, yes, that will be coming down. We don't know whether today or later on.

ACOSTA: And, professor, what do you make of this reporting out of Newsweek that Justice Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett are on this sort of collision course over the case that could give domestic abusers the right to own a firearm? They point out there that during a previous trademark case, Coney Barrett said, and, again, sometimes this is kind of getting in the weeds, Justice Thomas mistakenly suggests that I present the federal trademark register as a limited public forum. That is not my position. Justice Thomas ignores my reasons for drawing the analogy. A lot of folks are kind of seizing on the fact that she, you know, mentions him by name here. What's going on?

AMAR: With great respect to the author of that piece, I think it may be overreading the tea leaves It is true that Justice Thomas is a particularly emphatic kind of originalist and Justice Barrett is a slightly softer kind of originalist. And at the margins, that can make a difference in this case or that case. They agreed in bottom line result in the trademark case. They agreed in bottom line result on an earlier gun case called Bruen.

I do think they have slightly different points of view, but they're both originalists. They both were there in the Dobbs case, for example, on originalist grounds.

[10:10:03]

But our audience should not be shocked if the Supreme Court in a case called Rahimi, and it could happen ten minutes from now, actually the gun argument loses, don't be shocked if that happens, which will be the first major loss for a Second Amendment argument in the Supreme Court. There are three big cases where the Second Amendment won. One called Heller by Justice Scalia. One called McDonald by Justice Alito. And one called Bruen by Justice Thomas. So, three conservative Republicans, three wins for the Second Amendment. This one could be from the chief. And, actually, the gun argument could lose. It's a case about people who use guns who have a history of domestic abuse and violence against their life partners.

ACOSTA: Very important case.

AMAR: And don't be shocked if in that one, Thomas loses, he might be in dissent, and Barrett will be with the chief justice.

Now, I was an idiot because I just made a public prediction, and I could look like a total fool in three minutes.

ACOSTA: I doubt that very seriously, Professor, but thanks for your time, I really appreciate it. Please stay stand by, because these other decisions may be coming down shortly.

In the meantime, House Democrats are demanding answers from the Supreme Court about its series of recent scandals. Oversight Committee members Jamie Raskin and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez sent a letter to Chief Justice John Roberts questioning whether any steps have been taken to address controversies involving Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas.

CNN's Sunlen Serfaty is up on Capitol Hill for us. Sunlen, what does that letter say?

SUNLEN SERFATY, CNN WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: Well, Jim, essentially, these Democrats are calling out the chief justice in this letter that was obtained by CNN's Annie Grayer. They're calling him out and asking him very directly, essentially, what steps, what exactly are you doing to investigate these growing ethics scandals that are plaguing these two justices that are sitting on the Supreme Court?

They note that Roberts declined an invitation from Senate Democrats to meet in person and talk about all these issues, and they say, quote, in the note, since you have refused to meet with Congress, we question what steps you are actually taking as either the chief justice or the presiding officer of the judicial conference to investigate these glaring examples of political bias and lack of disclosure.

Now, they also asked Roberts in this letter to outline the standards for recusal decisions and whether those have been met given the fact that there are two cases before the Supreme Court that involved former President Donald Trump, and there are some apparent conflicts of interests involving Alito and Thomas.

So, they asked those questions. They want all of this outlined by the chief justice and back to their hands by July 5th. That's the deadline they have given him. Of course, Democrats, Jim, on Capitol Hill have been slowly growing the pressure amid all this growing ethics scandal. So, this is just one more example of them increasing the pressure, keeping up on the Supreme Court, of course, at a moment where all eyes are on the Supreme Court this morning. Jim?

ACOSTA: All eyes are on the court indeed. Sunlen Serfaty, thank you very much.

Now to Biden versus Trump round two their first debate of this election just one week away when the president and former president square off right here on CNN. We have new details this morning on how the men and their teams of advisers are prepping for the rematch. A new poll by Fox shows Biden leading Trump by two percentage points among registered voters. That lead is within the margin of error, but it does show Biden making a three-point gain since May.

Joining us now to talk about this is CNN White House Correspondent Arlette Saenz, CNN National Political Reporter Steve Contorno.

Arlette, first to you, how is President Biden preparing for this debate?

ARLETTE SAENZ, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Jim, President Biden will leave Rehoboth Beach, Delaware, this evening and head straight to Camp David, where he will hunker down for the next few days with his top aides to prepare for this debate. One of the key goals for Biden heading into next week's showdown is trying to paint his opponent Donald Trump as a divisive and chaotic figure who is unfit to serve in the office of the presidency.

Now, it is expected that these debate prep sessions at Camp David will start with some informal discussions where they will talk about the possible topics and questions that could come up and think about ways to answer them. Then it's anticipated that Biden would head into these full 90-minute mock debate sessions. That is something that he did last time around when he faced off against Donald Trump back in 2020. Aides have already started compiling binders with a list of topics, possible answers, and, really, Biden is known for providing extensive feedback in these types of debate sessions. So, a lot of this will be evolving as it takes place.

The debates prep sessions are being led by his former White House chief of staff, Ron Klain, who did this back in 2020. You also have Bruce Reed, the deputy chief of staff, who has been tasked with going through materials and hours of Trump footage to determine some of the areas where they could try to draw contrast with him on the debate stage.

[10:15:01]

There's also the possibility that Biden's former personal lawyer, Bob Bauer, could potentially play Trump in these mock debates as he did in 2020 sessions. The previous mock debates had really focused on drawing up all the possible scenarios for what could happen on that stage, relating to Trump's behavior, and also the attack lines that he could have on both policy as well as personal matters. They are bracing for the potential that Trump could try to bring up Hunter Biden's felony gun charges, a conviction that took place in Delaware just last week.

But Biden advisers heading into this debate say that the sessions so far have also focused for President Biden on trying to hold Trump accountable on that debate stage. One campaign official said that Biden has been much punchier in his attacks in recent weeks and that is something they are hoping to continue at that debate.

But it all comes at a time where this debate is taking place much earlier than any other debate in presidential history, the Biden campaign really hoping that this will be a starting point for them to draw these contrasts as they firmly believe that the more that people remember what happened during the Trump presidency and think about what could happen in a second term, that that is something that will bring voters over to the Biden side.

So, all are fully aware of the high stakes of this contest as Biden prepares to face off against Trump once again.

ACOSTA: All right, Arlette. And, Steve, what's happening inside the Trump campaign? Well, Jim, unlike President Biden, Donald Trump is not spending the next week bunkering down and studying. In fact, he's got a fundraiser tonight in Ohio. He's holding a rally on Saturday in Pennsylvania, returning to the Philadelphia area once again. And he's also not doing mock debate sessions. That's something that the president is doing, as Arlette just said, something he actually did in the past, in previous cycles, with Donald Trump with Rudy Giuliani with Chris Christie.

Instead, he's been holding sort of informal policy sessions, including with some of his potential running mates. He's met with J.D. Vance, with Senator Rubio, where they've talked policy and those in those interactions. He's also been huddling with some of his top advisers, his campaign managers, individuals like Kellyanne Conway and Stephen Miller has been prepping him on immigration, also talking to Richard Grenell, so sort of laying out some of the key of the policy areas where they feel like this debate is going to center on, immigration, the border, crime and inflation, and certainly abortion.

But they've also been preparing him to face attacks from Joe Biden over these criminal convictions and as well as what he did and didn't do on January 6th. So, they are anticipating that those issues are going to come up and they're trying to figure out how they are going to respond to that.

It's also been interesting to watch the former president in recent days, because for so long, they have been making this case that Joe Biden will be too feeble and having him on stage next to Trump will be a great visual comparison. Well, actually, recently, they've been sort of resetting the expectations and making the case that they think that Joe Biden is going to come out strong. They've been feeding into this conspiracy that has absolutely zero evidence that President Biden will show up with some sort of performance enhancers.

But for their audience and their supporters who have heard nothing but about how Joe Biden is not up to the task, it's been interesting to watch this sort of leveling of expectations heading into next Thursday's debate.

ACOSTA: All right. Arlette and Steve, thanks a lot, guys. I really appreciate it.

And we're just one week from the first presidential debate of the year hosted by CNN. Don't miss President Joe Biden, former President Donald Trump going head to head on June 27th at 9:00 P.M. right here on CNN.

And we're awaiting more opinions from the Supreme Court on some very consequential cases. We'll bring them to you if and when we get them. Stand by. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:20:00]

ACOSTA: This morning, civil liberty groups are vowing action after Louisiana's governor signed a law requiring the Ten Commandments be displayed in every public school classroom. The new legislation requires the commandments be on a poster-size display in a large, easily readable font.

CNN's Isabel Rosales joins us with more details. Isabel, what else can you tell us about why this happened?

ISABEL ROSALES, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Jim, we will have a legal battle over this new law ahead of us here. Opponents of it say that it's unconstitutional, a violation of the Establishment Clause in the Constitution, that it's essentially promoting one religion. Supporters say, no, the Ten Commandments do belong in the classroom, and that it has historical value outside of it being a religious document.

The governor, during the signing event yesterday, said that it will bring about respect for the rule of law and the sponsor of a bill saying that it will bring about a moral code into classrooms.

Now, Kentucky tried a similar directive, which the Supreme Court struck down. But that was back in 1980. And right now we have a very different Supreme Court that is friendlier to religious rights.

Yesterday, the governor did sign House Bill 71 calling it the one of his favorites out of all the education bills that he has signed.

It mandates a poster-size display of the Ten Commandments and easy to read font that is large and is the central focus of that poster. Here's what else he said. If you want to respect the rule of law, you've got to start from the original law given, which was Moses. He got his commandments from God.

We spoke to a Louisiana mom and a teacher who, back in 2022, ran for Congress as a Democrat. Here's what she thinks about it.

[10:25:01]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TIA LEBRUM, LOUISIANA EDUCATOR AND MOM: I'm very opposed to it. And it's not anything to do with disliking religion. It's just that there are different religions that exist in our communities. I've taught Jehovah's Witnesses. I've taught Muslim students. I have really great Muslim teacher friends who are going to now have to display Christianity as the accepted or promoted religion in our state.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROSALES: And this is part of what Civil Liberties groups are saying, four of which are suing, including the ACLU, saying that students here are essentially a captive audience. They have to go to school and now they're going to be getting a school-sponsored religious message.

The executive director of the ACLU of Louisiana, also saying this, politicians have no business imposing their preferred religious doctrine on students and families in public schools. That executive director also noting the timing of the signing of this bill just yesterday, Juneteenth. She calls that deeply concerning.

ACOSTA: All right. Isabel Rosales, thank you very much.

Coming up, potential fallout from the mutual defense treaty between North Korea and Russia. We're live in Seoul with the ripple effects from the Korean Peninsula to Ukraine. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:30:00]