Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Supreme Court Upholds Law Banning Domestic Abusers From Owning Guns; Steve Bannon Makes Longshot Bid To Supreme Court To Avoid Prison; Now: Judge Hears Arguments To Dismiss Classified Docs Case. Aired 11-11:30a ET

Aired June 21, 2024 - 11:00   ET

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

[11:00:00]

SCOTT PARAZYNSKI, FORMER NASA ASTRONAUT: You know why didn't we get to the root problem earlier.

JIM ACOSTA, CNN ANCHOR: Yes. Well, we know these are grizzled veterans as are you and they can take on anything. We wish them the best. And I wish we had more time, Scott, but we're out of time. Let's do this again next week. We'll catch up on these crew members and see how they're doing. Scott, thanks very much for your time. We appreciate it.

All right. And thanks very much for joining us this morning. Very busy morning. I'm Jim Acosta. Our next hour of newsroom with Wolf Blitzer starts right now. Have a great weekend.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington. We're following breaking news here in the CNN Newsroom. The U.S. Supreme Court is upholding a federal law that bans domestic abusers from owning a firearm. The Major Second Amendment ruling was nearly unanimous eight to one decision only Justice Clarence Thomas dissented. In the majority opinion the Chief Justice John Roberts said the court had, quote, no trouble upholding the law arguing and once again, I'm quoting, our tradition of firearm regulation allows the government to disarm individuals who present a credible threat to the physical safety of others, close quote.

Our chief legal affairs correspondent Paula Reid is here with me in the CNN Newsroom. Paula, walk us through this is a major decision by the Supreme Court.

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: It is. It's one of the key decisions that we're watching for this term. And here the Supreme Court holds that the Second Amendment like other rights has limits. And here they're focused on domestic violence offenders and banning them from owning firearms. And it's interesting that the Chief Justice said they, quote, had no trouble reaching this decision, because he also acknowledges that some recent decisions that they've made expanding Second Amendment rights have caused confusion in the lower courts.

He writes, quote, some courts have misunderstood the methodology of our recent Second Amendment cases. These precedents were not meant to suggest a law trapped in amber. As we explained in a different gun case, Heller, for example, the reach of the Second Amendment is not limited only to those arms that were in existence at the founding. So this is one of the questions that has come back up to the Supreme Court since they expanded the definition of the Second Amendment.

But here, this is a big win for gun, those who want to limit people from having guns if they pose a threat to others. In the oral arguments, the Solicitor General pointed to the fact that someone who lives with someone and they are a survivor of domestic violence from that individual is five times more likely to die if that person has a gun.

And of course, there was a dissent from Justice Clarence Thomas, who writes, quote, the court and the government do not point to a single historical law, revoking a citizen Second Amendment right, based on possible interpersonal violence. Now, he also notes that this is based on a protective order, not a conviction. That's something that he really focused on. And he said in the interest of ensuring the government can regulate one subset of society, today's decision puts at risk the Second Amendment rights of many more, which is why he dissented.

BLITZER: Eight to one decision by the nine justices of the Supreme Court. Joan Biskupic, is this a surprise, this decision?

JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN SENIOR SUPREME COURT ANALYST: I know it's not, Wolf. And I have to say, you know, I was just in the courtroom where the Chief Justice laid out his reasoning and read it from the bench, with many people there watching waiting for this case that had been argued on November 7th. So even though it was predictable that they were going to uphold this law that certainly is targeted at dangerous people, there was a question of how they would.

And I think it's really important for people to understand that the 2022 decision that's now the baseline for any kind of gun regulations, when they expanded Second Amendment rights, they have not further clarified exactly how that should play out for other kinds of gun regulations. We noted in this case, Chief Justice John Roberts stressed that this man, you know, posed a very credible threat, and that our history and tradition of gun regulations, targeting people who pose that kind of threat and who are a menace to use a word back from two centuries ago, a menace to society.

That kind of regulation could be upheld. But Wolf fear something important, the Chief Justice rights for a majority, eight to one, as Paula said, but a majority of other justices break off to explain their idea of how gun regulations should be assessed. Justice Sotomayor, joined by Elena Kagan wrote separately, Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett and Justice Jackson all wrote separately to put in their two cents about how to weigh gun regulations coming up from other kinds of cases that would be unlike just this one that specifically targeted individuals who are subjected to domestic violence restraining orders. This was easy Wolf, but going forward, they will not be easy cases.

BLITZER: It was almost unanimous, Elie Honig, not completely because Justice Clarence Thomas dissented. What do you make of his dissent?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, Justice Thomas is all alone on an island here. He takes such a broad view of the Second Amendment almost an absolutist view of the Second Amendment. To illustrate that Justice Alito, Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Kavanaugh, Justice Amy Coney Barrett all disagreed with him. They even said this restriction on the Second Amendment is reasonable given the danger given the threat that this poses to the public. Important understand how this arose.

[11:05:21]

There's a criminal statute in Federal Law Section 922(j), if anyone wants to look it up that lists categories of prohibited persons who are not allowed to own a firearm, felons, fugitives people who've been dishonorably discharged from the military. And this is one of the categories, someone who was subjected to a restraining order in a DV, domestic violence scenario. And the Supreme Court said it's perfectly reasonable to uphold this.

And the other thing that I think is really important here is this is extremely rare. It's been decades until today, since we've seen a Supreme Court opinion that narrows the reach in the scope of the Second Amendment.

BLITZER: What do you make of it?

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: So a couple of things, one, the one probe -- one of -- the big prohibition Elie left out there was drug users and people addicted to firearms, also under that statute. Now, we all may know of a high profile individual who's charged under that statute, that's Hunter Biden. And I would think that a challenge is coming to the appeals courts and maybe even the Supreme Court on the section of it that he was charged with as well. So that's one thing.

Two, I want to pick up where Joan left off on the 2022 opinion, Bruin is the name of the opinion and the mess, quite frankly, that the Supreme Court left with that case, setting aside the morality of what we think of firearms, how the Supreme Court crafted the scheme of how we regulate and the court will adjudicate them. It's very complicated. The language he -- Chief Justice Roberts use today is consistent with our nation's tradition of firearms regulation.

That's -- if something is consistent with our tradition, OK. If it seems not, not OK. Now, the question is, how do you assess that? And I think the justices today are grappling with, does something need to be the historical twin of a regulation that existed in 1780 or whatever else? Or does it need to be an analogue sort of similar enough that it passes muster? And I assure you, the court is going to struggle with this for years, if not decades to come because of and I'll say it again, the mess that they created an opening masked in (ph) Bruin.

BISKUPIC: Can I just give a post script.

WILLIAMS: Yes. BISKUPIC: The chief did say from the bench, it does not need to be identical. It does not need to be a twin, but it has to be relevant and similar. And what those words mean, have different variations among these justices about how relevant, how similar.

WILLIAMS: And to clarify, I mean, what we're -- what the door is now open to is years of hair splitting as to what we think of as relevant or analogous.

BLITZER: Does someone needs to be convicted of domestic abuse, or just charged with domestic abuse?

BISKUPIC: Well, I'll tell you that too, because that's where Clarence Thomas split off. In this case, he had not been convicted of the domestic abuse violations. He had been under restraining order. But the chief did stress that a finding had been made about his threat, his danger to society. And what Clarence Thomas split on were several due process issues, and one was, this man was not convicted of that prior offense.

BLITZER: And then they still could not go out and get a gun now. Go ahead.

HONIG: If we look at the list of prohibited categories, some of them are objective, is the person convicted felon or not? Was he dishonorably discharged or not? Others leave wiggle room, for example, who's an addict? What does it mean? There's another one I'm quoting the statute here says if somebody has been adjudicated a, quote, mental defective, that's obviously archaic, outdated language. But what does that mean? So there's some confusion.

WILLIAMS: And one more big point on that, not only are some of them absolutes, are you convicted or not, they're fuzzy. And some of them deal with public safety. And some of them don't. And some -- one could make an argument in the back of the Hunter Biden case, does drug addiction inherently make someone a public threat? That will be the argument that they will raise I'm not weighing in on it here. It's very different than a domestic violence restraining order, which was the argument that the court went with today.

BLITZER: Jennifer Becker is also with us. She's the director of the National Center on Gun Violence and Relationships. Jennifer, thanks so much. What is the practical impact of this U.S. Supreme Court decision for domestic violence victims?

JENNIFER BECKER, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL CENTER ON GUN VIOLENCE AND RELATIONSHIPS: Well, we've seen the impact over the 30 years that this law has been in place in states that have fully implemented this law and actually removed guns from those who are prohibited. In this way, they've seen a 12 percent reduction in intimate partner homicides. It's real, real life impact. And I think this case, and the decision today highlight two really important points. One is that protection orders are critically important tool for survivors of domestic violence, to address all of their different safety concerns, including the threat of firearms. And the other is that domestic violence isn't, you know, just interpersonal violence. That only happens behind closed doors. It is community violence, and domestic abusers who use firearms to commit their violence also community violence like the facts presented in the Rahimi case. There's a connection between domestic violence and mass shooting. Domestic abuse calls are one of the leading fatalities for officers in the line of duty when responding. So this is really important, and the impact will continue to be felt.

[11:10:23]

BLITZER: And these justices, it's pretty clear eight justices, Paula, they, I guess for practical reasons, it's simply just made sense. If someone is accused, or actually convicted of domestic abuse or domestic violence, that individual should not potentially have a gun.

REID: Yes. And she makes a lot of really important points about how this impacts not only people who are going through domestic violence, but society at large, as you pointed out the facts in this case, there were other shootings, actually, that brought this man to the attention of law enforcement and the fact that he still had a weapon who's involved in and also the danger for law enforcement incredibly significant.

Also, you know, we talked earlier about the Hunter Biden case obviously covered that trial a couple of weeks ago. I think that his lawyers, if they have enough resources, resources have been a big question right now, in the Hunter Biden camp, they will likely try to appeal that and possibly bring it back up to the Supreme Court trying to sort of seize on some of the concerns that were raised by the justices about just how far this extends. They'll try to differentiate him from someone who has a protective order, argue that his use of illicit drugs alleges, they would say, is different. And so I would expect that they're going to continue to litigate that if they can afford it.

BLITZER: How does this decision today, Joan Biskupic, compared to the other Second Amendment decision earlier the other day, the U.S. Supreme Court had on these bump stocks.

BISKUPIC: Very different, Wolf. This case actually examined the Second Amendment right to bear arms. The bump stock case had to do with a federal regulation against machine guns and whether bump stocks which can act in a machine gun like way, according to the federal government and according to the Donald Trump administration, that expanded that machine gun prohibition to bump stocks. That was a regulatory question.

It was a very important one. And there the court split six to three to say that, no, the way the federal prohibition dating back to the 1930s on machine guns was written, it should not encompass bump stocks, a very controversial decision there but not having to do with the Second Amendment. Whereas here, this really is the kind of case that's going to have reverberations for the other sorts of incidents we're talking about for federal and state gun regulations, just how to assess whether they encroach on a person's right to bear arms. BLITZER: It's a big win for those who support gun control.

BISKUPIC: It is. And it's a good win for the Biden administration, in this case, whereas Biden administration laws and the other going forward, but as I said, when you have so many concurrences, about how the next case should come, it just -- it -- people are going to be able to pick and choose what they want to rely on in this decision, Wolf.

BLITZER: Let them pick and choose and they will. All right, guys, thank you very, very much.

There's other breaking news just coming into CNN right now. Steve Bannon is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to pause his prison sentence while he appeals his contempt of Congress conviction. Steve Bannon is set to turn himself in on July 1st. I want to go straight to CNN's Sara Murray, who's working the story for us, Sara, take us through this request.

SARA MURRAY, CNN POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, this is a bit of a long shot attempt, but it tells you how much Steve Bannon does not want to go to prison. He and his attorneys are asking the Supreme Court to effectively pause his prison sentence so that he can continue to try to appeal this conviction. Now another former Trump adviser, Peter Navarro, had tried a similar move in front of the Supreme Court to pause his own conviction.

And the Supreme Court rejected that. So we'll see if they do the same with Steve Bannon's case or if they see it somewhat differently. All of this comes after late last night. An appeals court said it was not going to press pause on Steve Bannon's sentence. Now there was one judge who dissented in that opinion that's giving the Bannon team a little bit of hope when it comes to the Supreme Court.

But, look, this is not a long time coming. Steve Bannon was convicted two years ago of contempt of Congress for refusing to turn over documents or provide testimony to the House Committee that investigated January 6ath. He was sentenced to four months in prison and really since then, he has been fighting to stay out of jail and also to overturn that conviction, Wolf.

BLITZER: All right, Sara Murray with the breaking news there. Sara, thank you very much.

[11:14:30]

Lots of news going on right now, coming up, right now in Florida, Trump attorneys are back in Federal Court in the latest attempt to derail his classified documents case. We'll have more on that when we come back, lots going on. We're in the CNN Newsroom.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Happening now in Florida, Donald Trump's legal team is back in Federal Court and taking direct aim at the prosecutor in a classified documents case. The former president is arguing that Jack Smith was unlawfully appointed as the Special Counsel. Smith has brought charges against Trump in both Florida as well as right here in Washington, D.C. Joining us now CNN senior crime and justice reporter Katelyn Polantz. Katelyn, walk us through what is happening in court today.

KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN SENIOR CRIME AND JUSTICE REPORTER: Well, Wolf, Donald Trump isn't there in person, but we're more than an hour into this hearing, and it's Judge Cannon listening to leave arguments about a topic she wanted to hear quite a lot about, the authority and the validity of the Special Counsel's Office, their ability under the Constitution to bring a charge against someone like Donald Trump or anyone really. This is an issue that other judges have heard arguments on or even just looked at, because defense teams like Trump's have brought it before them.

[11:20:25]

And they dismissed these sorts of things very quickly. And said, no, this isn't about legal arguments, Special Counsel's Offices can bring cases in the Justice Department in the federal system, and take them on to trial. But Judge Cannon wants to hear hours of arguments of the -- on this, not just from the Special Counsel's Office and Donald Trump's team and his co-defendants teams, but also from law professors, people that have nothing to do with this case, but told her that they have opinions that they want to share about it. That is so unusual.

In any case, Wolf, in especially at the trial level, especially in a criminal case, but there's Judge Cannon hearing this in the first of three days of arguments on things she's going to have to figure out before trial, but how long that may be and when that trial may happen. A lot of question marks there.

BLITZER: So OK, Katelyn, what else is on the calendar for Judge Aileen Cannon in this case?

POLANTZ: Well, Judge Aileen Cannon has several things that she still has to decide and even hearings that she has to set what's coming up over the next couple of days. So she is looking at the constitutionality of the Special Counsel's Office starting today. She'll also look at that on Monday morning. In the afternoon on Monday, she's going to look at a request from prosecutors to limit Donald Trump's speech related to law enforcement involved in this case. The Justice Department says, he's really out there spreading misleading information that could cause a lot of harassment.

We've seen gag orders being placed on Donald Trump in the other cases, the District Attorney's Office in New York, Wolf, is still fighting to keep a gag order on Donald Trump even after his conviction there at trial. In this case, we haven't crossed that bridge yet. So we're going to see how Judge Cannon reacts to it on Monday. And then Tuesday, even more arguments all relating back to his team's attempts to cut out parts of this case to get rid of evidence. And then all of this is coming, as we await to see what happens with the Supreme Court. And if there is any level of immunity, what will happen in this case. And what Judge Aileen Cannon does, it's all going to be thought of and there's going to be crosstalk with what's happening with the other cases. Are they -- will they affect timing do the January 6th, 2020 election cases, or at least the federal case against Trump there, does that come back into play? And how will that affect everything? A lot of question marks yet again, Wolf.

BLITZER: Yes. Lots going on indeed. Katelyn Polantz, thanks very much.

[11:22:53]

Still to come, Donald Trump getting a fundraising boost out raising President Biden that for a second month in a row, thanks to a surge in donations after his criminal convictions. Stay with us. You're in the CNN Newsroom.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: We're just only six days away from the most anticipated moment of this historic presidential election season. At least so far the first presidential debate right here on CNN. Donald Trump playing the expectation game just ahead of the crucial contest, praising his opponent, President Biden in a new interview. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I was never a fan of his. But I will say he beat Paul Ryan still years ago, but he beat Paul Ryan pretty badly. And I assume he's going to be somebody that will be a worthy debater. Yes, I would say. I think, I don't want to underestimate him.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: All right, let's discuss with CNN political commentator, Republican strategist, Shermichael Singleton, and former special assistant to President Biden, Meghan Hays. Shermichael, it was only a few days ago, he was lowering expectations about Biden, can barely talk, barely walk, basically suggesting you see now. Now he's saying, oh, he's a great debater.

SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Wolf, I wish Republicans and the former president would have started this campaign of boosting the president several weeks ago, a month ago, because remember, Republicans that the same thing before the State of the Union. And with all due respect, President Biden knocked it out of the park. He did exceptionally well, so much so that he saw an increase in his poll numbers.

And so by lowering expectations of the President does OK. Then by all accounts, he will have done well. So I think this is proper for the former president to do this. I just think he's a little too late.

BLITZER: What do you think, Meghan? MEGHAN HAYS, FORMER SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO PRESIDENT BIDEN: I agree. I think that he's setting the stage. He had already laid expectations for the President to have a terrible debate and like, barely put two sentences together. And so I'm off the stage. We all know that's not the case with Joe Biden, we all know he can put sentences together and he's actually a very strong at debate. So I do think that President Trump sort of hurt his own hand here.

BLITZER: What are the stakes right now for these two candidates, Biden and Trump?

HAYS: I think they're extremely high. I think that the optics are almost more important than the, the substance in this. They both need to come out really strong. They both need to continue to build their momentum. And we saw some fundraising numbers that are going to be impacted by these debates. But also, there's been nothing that's moved the needle in the polling and this debate, I think, can help do that.

[11:29:52]

BLITZER: I think one of the most important parts of this upcoming debate and we're only a few days away from the CNN debate, is that only the microphone for the individual who has asked a question and has been asked to respond will be working, the other mic will be muted at least during the course of this debate.