Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Now, Supreme Court Releases Opinions; Supreme Court Rejects Multibillion-Dollar Opioid Settlement That Shielded Sackler Family; Supreme Court Rules in Biden Administration Challenge of Idaho's Strict Abortion Ban. Aired 10-10:30a ET

Aired June 27, 2024 - 10:00   ET

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

JIM ACOSTA, CNN ANCHOR: Good morning, everybody. You are live in the CNN Newsroom. I'm Jim Acosta in Atlanta.

We're following two huge stories happening right now. You're looking live at the U.S. Supreme Court. At any moment, justices will begin handing down another round of key rulings and other major decision on abortion is expected. And we're waiting for the ruling on Donald Trump's claim of presidential immunity that we've been waiting on for some time now.

Those issues likely to stoke tonight's fiery and historic presidential debate. President Biden will face his predecessor in a primetime showdown here at CNN's World Headquarters in Atlanta and America will be watching.

[10:00:03]

A New York Times Siena College poll shows nearly three -- look at this, three out of four registered voters do plan to watch tonight's debate, of course.

Let's begin this hour at the Supreme Court with CNN's Pamela Brown and CNN Senior Legal Analyst Elie Honig.

Pamela, this had everybody right over the back of the head yesterday, Bloomberg News reporting that the court Times, however, mistakenly posted its opinion yesterday on a major abortion case in Idaho. Based on that post, it appears poised to temporarily allow abortions and medical emergencies. Walk us through this.

PAMELA BROWN, CNN ANCHOR: That's right. That was really a shock development yesterday. And actually the high court did confirm that a document was inadvertently posted to the court's website and this was reviewed by Bloomberg News. And this was involving the case about abortions in Idaho.

And according to that document that was uploaded, and we should caution this could change depending on what officially comes down from the high court. But in this, it was a 6-3 opinion, you had three conservatives siding with three liberals, and it essentially allows for abortions to happen in the state of Idaho in the case of medical emergencies, not just when a woman's life is at risk. And so that is what the Idaho abortion ban initially allowed for was, just when a woman's life was at risk, a doctor could perform that abortion. So, that law is essentially on hold for now.

And just to put this in perspective, when it was in effect, women had to be airlifted out of the state for medical emergencies. And so now, you know, supporters of this ruling are hopeful that now women will be able to get more care in the case of medical emergencies, which is what this allows. But we should note this is not a holding. This stops short of saying, based on what was posted to the court's site, and, again, it is not official, it stopped short of saying that federal law supersedes state law.

So, what that means is that you have the Idaho law, but also 13 other states with near total abortion bans. And this is not resolved. It's still very much unsettled here. And, in fact, there is a challenge against a state law abortion ban, near total abortion ban, a Texas abortion ban that's working its way through the lower court. So, that means this issue could still end up right back here in front of the high court as early as next term.

ACOSTA: Yes. And, Elie, I mean, this is a draft opinion, but it finalized, this would have major implications in more than a dozen states. And as Pamela was just saying a few moments ago, it almost feels like a kick the can kind of moment for the court.

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: That's exactly what it is, Jim. So, first of all, a colossal screw up by the Supreme Court clerk's office for posting this opinion, which we don't know for sure if it's going to be the final opinion, but it certainly looks like it. What the Supreme Court did here is essentially say, we're not ruling on this just now. It's called improvidently granted, meaning we screwed up. We never should have taken this case, and we're not going to decide it now.

So, really, what they did is they punted. And Justice Jackson wrote a dissent where she called that just out. She said, look, this preserves the status quo for now in Idaho. The federal law, the broader federal law will prevail as of now, but, really, there's all sorts of issues that need to be resolved eventually, including the constitutionality of Idaho statute, the constitutionality of other statute.

And, ultimately, the bottom line question here, Jim and Pam, is what prevails, federal law or state law? Because federal law says any hospital receiving Medicare funds, which is all of them essentially, has to provide emergency care if the mother's life is in danger or if it's needed to stabilize the mother's overall health condition. The Idaho law and other similar laws in Texas say no, you only a doctor only has to provide an abortion only if the mother's life is at risk, but not if there's a different lesser but serious medical condition. That's a huge difference with enormous implications.

ACOSTA: Yes. I mean, and this federal law has been on the books for years now. And so it's amazing that this is really up in the air at this point.

And, Pamela, let's turn to the much anticipated ruling, we'll just say that, on Donald Trump's claim of presidential immunity. We're still waiting. Walk us through the stakes if the Supreme Court weighs in. This could send shockwaves.

BROWN: I mean, the stakes are through the roof, Jim, right? I mean, this is undoubtedly the most consequential blockbuster case of this term because it is considering the extent to which a president, a former executive who, you know, was in office can have immunity from conduct during his or hypothetically her time in office, in the Oval Office.

And, look, you have Trump on one hand side of this, right, former President Trump, who is asking the court to embrace sweeping immunity, arguing that this applies to his time after he left office, and it also applies to his efforts to interfere in the peaceful transfer of power in 2020. And then on the other side, you have Jack Smith, the special counsel in this case, who says a former executive cannot have immunity here and that Trump's acts while he was in the Oval Office, for example, interfering in the peaceful transfer of power, that those were not official acts.

[10:05:00]

That was private conduct. And that basically, that if you were to give him immunity here, that it would just -- you know, depending on how the court rules, it could give a president sort of free pass for criminal conduct.

So, you have the lower courts who were dismissive of Trump's arguments in this case. It will be interesting to see what the high court comes out with. Will it be a more nuanced approach? Will the high court come out and say there needs to be official conduct versus private conduct, and here's a test for this, we're going to kick it down to the lower courts. And that's notable because timing is of the essence here, right? Depending on how the high court rules it could have a direct impact on some of the cases involving Trump and whether a trial will happen before the election or not. So, we are closely watching this.

ACOSTA: Yes. I mean, as critics of the court of said, the delay is the decision. And, you know, this effectively means that we may not get this case, so this January 6th case, before the November election.

Now, Pamela and Eliee please stand by. We know there's a lot of important stuff coming out of the court. We'll get back to you.

With me now for more on this, CNN's Gloria Borger and Jamie Gangel, great to be with both of you here in Atlanta on our big World Headquarters, the Techwood campus. It's beautiful here.

GLORIA BORGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Yes.

ACOSTA: They've been treating you nice here.

BORGER: Very nice.

ACOSTA: Good. They've been treating me good too.

ACOSTA: Let's talk --

BORGER: I feel like I'm a Google.

ACOSTA: I know. It's incredible. It's just a beautiful place. Jamie, what about this abortion ruling yet again not being released to the public in a conventional way? I'll just put it diplomatically.

JAMIE GANGEL, CNN SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT: Oops.

BORGER: Yes.

GANGEL: Oops, technical difficulty.

ACOSTA: Did I hit send ?

GANGEL: This is right. This is -- the court has had a lot of, trauma and chaos and this adds to it. I think what will be interesting, we have one decision out that's just been announced. That's an EPA case. This is Ohio versus EPA Good Neighbor Plan, where we were told that there are two boxes that have come out, so three or four opinions. We don't know whether the abortion decision will come out officially today. But --

ACOSTA: This was on the Biden plan to curb smog and air pollution. This is the first one that we know about at this point.

GANGEL: But this is -- if that abortion decision comes out today, look, we expect reproductive rights to be discussed at the debate tonight, with or without this decision. The Democrats, Biden campaign, see this as a winning issue for them. They've looked at public polling. Public polling is like 74 percent. It's just out of step with the overturn of Roe versus Wade. So, that will be significant and may come up this evening.

ACOSTA: Yes. I mean, Gloria, you know, Donald Trump put the justices on the court who overturned Roe versus Wade and the Biden campaign, and he takes credit for it out on the campaign trail. And this is what it has unleashed on the public, this federal law that says you have to provide emergency care at hospitals for all kinds of patients who are in life-threatening situations. This is like kind of an up in the air jump ball right now as to how this is going to land.

BORGER: You know, it's the question of and I think it was written in the dissents. Be careful what you wish for because you're going to get it. And the complications are enormous. One complication I don't think we're going to get today on a Supreme Court case is the immunity issue.

ACOSTA: And why?

BORGER: Well, first of all, I think that the chief justice understands what a political issue that would be and how that would play into the debate this evening in every possible way. And Roberts really is trying to keep the quarter out of politics, although, as we know, that's impossible at these days. And so I think that, you know, that is one case that's going to have to wait because they cannot do it the night of the debate. I mean, they cannot. They just -- they can't dip their toe into that this evening. ACOSTA: Yes. But whether the Supreme Court rules on immunity or not today, Jamie, it's going to come up tonight. Joe Biden is going to bring it.

BORGER: Oh, yes.

GANGEL: Well, Biden is going to make, we are told, a centerpiece tonight. Democracy in Peril is not a campaign slogan. This is the reason he ran last time. This is the reason he thinks is at the center of his campaign.

I think the other thing about that immunity decision, whether we get it today, which I agree with Gloria, it's highly unlikely, or tomorrow, or it could go early next week. The significance is will this trial happen? Will Jack Smith, the special counsel, be able to have this trial before the election? Why is that so important? He has all kinds of grand jury testimony from people like Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, former Vice President Mike Pence, White House counsel.

[10:10:08]

He knows things that my sources at the Justice Department feel American voters should hear before the election.

ACOSTA: And I do want to break away from our conversation just for a moment to get back out to Pamela Brown and Elie Honig because we have a new decision coming down from the Supreme Court. They have rejected the multibillion dollar Purdue Pharma opioid settlement, is that right, that shielded the Sackler family? That is going to be very controversial, Pamela. What can you tell us?

BROWN: That's right. The Supreme Court rejected this controversial settlement, Jim, that essentially, on one hand, would have sent billions of dollars to treatment programs and victims of the nation's opioid epidemic, but also it would have shielded the Sackler family from future lawsuits.

So, what we're learning right now is that the Supreme Court rejected this. And this, Elie Honig, to bring you in, is a win for the Biden administration.

HONIG: It is because the Biden administration had challenged this settlement, Pam. So, just so people sort of have the context here, Purdue Pharma is the manufacturer of OxyContin, and they've been sued and brought -- had legal proceedings brought against them by the United States Justice Department. They also entered into bankruptcy. And as part of a bankruptcy agreement, Purdue Pharma agreed to give up four point something billion dollars to go to treatment. But they also got a benefit in that agreement, which is that future claims, future lawsuits against them were exterminated, were extinguished in advance.

And part of the agreement that the bankruptcy court agreed to is, okay, you're going to give up all this money, but future people cannot sue you for this. And the Biden administration challenged that. And the Supreme Court has now agreed with the Biden administration. The Supreme Court has said you cannot exterminate, extinguish future lawsuits.

And the sort of lineup of justices is really interesting here, completely cross-ideological both ways. The majority is justices Gorsuch, Thomas, Alito, Barrett and Jackson. That's a group you don't see often together. The dissenters are Justices Kavanaugh, the Chief Justice Roberts, along with Sotomayor and Kagan.

BROWN: That's fascinating.

HONIG: So, yes, you're never going to see this alignment again.

BROWN: You don't see that. Let me just follow up because for the viewer that might hear, but, wait, it's rejecting the settlement that would give billions of dollars to victims of the opioid epidemic and treatment programs. What about that?

HONIG: Well, so first of all, it sends them essentially back to the drawing board. They're now going to have to try to come up with a different bankruptcy agreement, but the court's judgment is it's unlawful. It's unconstitutional to cut off the rights of people who might sue in the future, but just haven't sued yet. That's really the gist of the decision here.

BROWN: All right, so a win for the Biden administration, as you just laid out, Elie Honig.

Back to you, Jim.

ACOSTA: All right. Pamela, Elie, thank you very much. And, Gloria, I mean, this opioid issue is -- it's a massive issue across this country and it's one that maybe we just don't cover enough, the damage, the wreckage, movies and so on.

BORGER: Right. Look, people want the opportunity -- big pharma is not popular. And people want the opportunity to be able to sue big pharma. And the Biden administration said, look, you know, we don't want to cut it off at any particular point. And I think when you look at what's gone on in the court so far, and, again, we haven't had the immunity case, but the Biden administration has done okay, and which is sort of surprising to some people. And, again, we don't have the immunity case, but the Biden administration folks are not disappointed in a lot of these rulings.

ACOSTA: Yes. And, Jamie, you know, we are waiting not only the immunity decision that pertains to the January 6th case, but there's other January 6th case, which is also very important.

GANGEL: Right. That one is a little more complicated. It has to do with sort of a very narrow definition of the law about obstruction. And it's actually was brought by defendants in January 6th rioters. When you look at it, that particular charge was not brought across the board. It was brought for the most, what, egregious, serious cases. So, that is something we're waiting for.

Obviously, because of that, and because of the case against Trump, people are looking at that. Legal experts are arguing over whether that could also pertain to Trump's case. Some legal experts say maybe very narrowly, others say not at all. But, again, we have to wait for the decision.

BORGER: Right. It could potentially affect Trump, but we just -- we don't know.

ACOSTA: Right. And both of those decisions obviously could push that January 6th case, that Jack Smith case, well past the election. And voters may not have the opportunity to hear the facts of that case before going to vote.

BORGER: Well, I think at this point, given how close we are to the election. I think we have to assume that we're not going to hear these cases before the election.

[10:15:03]

I think that would be the best bet. I mean, Jack Smith has been trying his darndest, and you know that from the case in Florida, for example, the document case, that the Alvin Bragg case in New York seems to be the only one that the voters have been able to see the fruition.

And, by the way, I think that is something that Joe Biden might mention this evening, the felonies and just to kind of dig it into Trump. But, you know, I think these other cases, and it's upsetting to a lot of people, when you look at the polling, a majority of the American public believes that these cases should have been tried before the election.

ACOSTA: And it's just not going to happen. And, Jamie, I mean, let's just get back to, I mean, this abortion ruling that leaked out of the Supreme Court yesterday. What's going on over there? Do they need to hit control-alt-delete or something?

GANGEL: I mean, I forgive me for looking at my phone. I keep checking to see the update.

ACOSTA: Are we going to get that one?

GANGEL: They're going to going to put it out today. Clearly, it is a very important case both in Idaho but also for reproductive rights every place. It's been two years, we have to remember, since Roe was overturned.

ACOSTA: Which also got leaked.

GANGEL: Right. And so this focuses on this Idaho law that says no abortion unless a mother's life is in danger. This is a very high standard and it is very tricky for doctors because they have to make a call in an emergency situation. And it has a broader impact than just an abortion, because you can have a situation where maybe it's not the mother's life is in danger but it could prevent a family, a woman from having children again in the future. This goes really beyond just abortion.

ACOSTA: And it's had a chilling effect on the medical community in Idaho.

BORGER: It puts doctors in a terrible situation. I mean, you know, do you medevac somebody out of a hospital in Idaho? Not because their life is in danger, but because, potentially, they might have to have a hysterectomy as a young woman and not be able to have a child in the future? I mean, these are life and death decisions and the doctors are rebelling against it.

And, again, it's one of those unintended consequences of what occurred in Dobbs. And I think that, you know, the American public, when they see these stories, gets outraged by them.

ACOSTA: Yes, it has to have something to do with these poll numbers that we're seeing. Americans are still frustrated with the Dobbs decision. Every time abortion is on the ballot in state referendums they are winning by wide margins. I mean, talk about unintended consequences, it's almost as though the Dobbs case has rallied a lot of Americans around the idea of protecting reproductive rights. That's what it says in the numbers.

GANGEL: Big picture, what you're saying has to do with public opinion versus where this court has gone. And I think it's interesting, there is -- as you go through the cases, public opinion is not where the court has been.

And to just circle back to the immunity case, the fact that the court has waited this long to rule, they can rule quickly and write a decision quickly when they want to. In fact, a couple of weeks ago, former Congresswoman Liz Cheney wrote an op-ed talking about the importance of getting this decision quickly. They appear to be going to the last day.

BORGER: They didn't even have to rule, you know?

GANGEL: They didn't have to take it.

ACOSTA: And it makes you wonder when this ruling comes out, it makes you wonder what these justices are going to say. Because one of the things that we've seen in some of these cases so far, whether it's Ketanji Brown Jackson, some of the other justices, they've been making some pointed comments at their, you know, respective justices on the high court, you know, taking issue with where the court is right now. And it's coming out of the text in these decisions.

BORGER: I think the turmoil is obvious. I mean, we, we have a court in turmoil. And there's absolutely no doubt about it. I think it stems from the Dobbs decision. It's also in chaos given the leak, for example, this week again. When did that ever happen before Dobbs? I think there's a lot of mistrust on the part of certain justices towards other justices. I mean, this is something I don't think we've really ever seen to this extent.

[10:20:03]

BORGER: Yes, exactly. ACOSTA: The back story is going to be something else. All right, Jamie, Gloria, great to have both of you here in Atlanta. Thanks so much.

Coming up, we're just hours away from CNN's historic presidential debate. We're live in Atlanta with new reporting from the Biden and Trump camps. We're also, of course, watching the Supreme Court. Any decisions that come out, we'll get back to you in just a few moments. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ACOSTA: All right. Breaking news, we did just receive the Supreme Court ruling on the Idaho abortion case. I want to go straight out to my colleagues, Pamela Brown and Elie Honig. They are live outside the Supreme Court.

[10:25:00]

We're waiting for this to come down. Do we have any new details, Pamela, on what's happening?

BROWN: Well, we're just learning that this opinion was officially released from the high court, and it is in line with what was released inadvertently on the court's website yesterday. So, I'm going to bring in my colleagues, Elie Honig, Paula Reid, to break it down. Paula?

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: So, we've been listening in with the court to find out what cases we're going to get today. They had ten outstanding. We got four and two of the bigger ones. The first one you were discussing earlier, Purdue Pharma, but then also this abortion case out of Idaho, but a little bit of a spoiler, of course, we got this yesterday. It was inadvertently leaked on the court's website.

But yesterday in a statement, while the Supreme Court confirmed it had inadvertently briefly appeared on the website, it did not confirm that it was actually the opinion. Instead, the statement said that the actual formal opinion would be released in due course. Well, it looks like in due course is today.

So, as we reported yesterday in this opinion, the court sides with the Biden administration for now, but this is specific to the state of Idaho. They're saying, look, in the state of Idaho right now, if doctors need to perform abortions to stabilize a woman in an emergency room setting, they can continue to do that, even though the state law would require doctors to wait until a woman's life is in danger.

But the reason this doesn't really resolve the issue is because this only applies to Idaho. And in her concurrence, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, she said, look, this isn't a victory because you're not answering the question of what doctors are required to do by law now that you've sort of tossed Roe -- overturned Roe v. Wade and toss this issue down to the states.

So, technically, it's a win for the Biden administration in this highly watched abortion case, but it still leaves a lot of questions unanswered.

BROWN: Yes, right, because you have the Idaho ban, but also 13 other states, right, with the near total abortion ban, including in Texas. And there's a lawsuit challenging the Texas ban. And so this could end up right back before the high court soon, right?

HONIG: This is precisely Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's point that she makes in the dissent. She says, we punted today. That's what they did. They granted certiorari to the Supreme Court. They took the case several months ago. And now today they're saying, whoops, we messed up. We never should have taken the case back down to the normal course.

And what Justice Jackson is saying is we should be able to rule here, because federal law, when it conflicts with state law, should prevail, which would mean broader abortion rights, broader obligations by doctors to perform emergency surgeries.

And Justice Jackson says, the result of what we've done here today is we're going to have inconsistency state to state. We're going to subject people the country to ongoing litigation working its way through the federal district courts, courts of appeals before I think, and I think Justice Jackson agrees, ultimately will end up back at the Supreme Court when you have such a square clash between federal law and state law.

And the issue is so fundamental as to when do doctors have to give emergency care to patients, to women who are pregnant? That's such an important question. There's such a square conflict here. It will end up before the Supreme Court, but not for potentially many years. So, that's the frustration that Justice Jackson is voicing.

But Paula is exactly right. The practical effect for now is that in Idaho, doctors do have to give emergency care to women if their lives are in danger, or, and this is where the conflict comes in, or if it's necessary, short of saving their life, if it's necessary to stabilize a serious medical condition.

BROWN: Which could be, you know, risk to their fertility, which could be organ failure. So, this is going to have big implications for women in Idaho, as well as providers in Idaho, some of who have actually left the state because of the abortion ban. And, you know, before today's ruling, when the ban was in effect, women had to be airlifted out of the state.

And so this will have a big impact on women there, but like you said, this is far from settled across the board in this country. Back to you, Jim.

ACOSTA: Yes. It makes you wonder with all these unintended consequences from Dobbs that the Supreme Court here decided. Okay, let's punt on one of these and deal with it later. Elie, Pamela, thank you very much.

I want to go out to Meg Tirrell. And, Meg, a little weird in terms of how this ruling came out yesterday but it sounds like it's pretty much in line with what we saw yesterday. What do you think? What is this going to mean for women's health?

MEG TIRRELL, CNN MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Jim. Reading through this, it does look the same as what we saw inadvertently posted yesterday. And what it means for women's health is that in Idaho, this does put back into effect the protections of this federal law, EMTALA, on hospitals providing emergency care in the situations of abortion, where that is the medically necessary care to stabilize a pregnant person's health. So, Idaho has a very strict abortion ban that bans all abortion except to save the life of the pregnant person and in rare other circumstances.

So, the Biden administration had argued that that federal law called EMTALA conflicted with Idaho's strict abortion ban. And right now, what the Supreme Court is essentially saying is we shouldn't have taken up this case. This should go back down to the lower courts in Idaho. But while that happens, hospitals can provide this emergency care. But as we were hearing from Elie, you know, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson points out, this is essentially a delay in deciding the issues of this case.

And I've talked with law professors who looked at the decision, the sort of decision that came out yesterday, and said this allows confusion to reign in other states with abortion bans, even in states that have exceptions for the health of the pregnant person.

[10:30:03]

Because in many instances, I was talking with Elizabeth Seth (ph) at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law.