Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Supreme Court Issues Key Rulings on Abortion; Biden and Trump Presidential Debate. Aired 11-11:30a ET

Aired June 27, 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]

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: You are in the "CNN Newsroom." I'm Wolf Blitzer in Atlanta. We're following two huge stories happening right now. You're looking live at the U.S. Supreme Court. Just minutes ago, justices handed down several rulings, including a major decision on abortion. More on that in just a moment. And one ruling not released today is Donald Trump's claim of presidential immunity. We're standing by for that in the coming days.

Both those issues are likely to be center stage tonight in a historic presidential debate here in Atlanta. President Biden will face Donald Trump in a primetime showdown here at the CNN World Headquarters in Atlanta. And America, of course, the world, will be watching.

Take a look at this, a New York Times/Siena College poll shows nearly three out of four registered voters in the United States plan to watch tonight's debate. Let's begin this hour over at the Supreme Court. CNN's Pamela Brown is joining us right now.

Pamela, what can you tell us, first of all, about the abortion rulings handed down just minutes ago?

PAMELA BROWN, CNN ANCHOR: Well, Wolf, what the high court did today with this opinion, officially released, we should note is it essentially put the near total abortion ban in Idaho temporarily on hold. So, what this means is that women in Idaho, they can get an abortion if there is a medical emergency, not just when, you know, their life is on the line.

When this near total abortion ban was in effect, some women had to be airlifted out of the state because providers were worried that if they did an abortion, if there was a medical emergency, that they could be prosecuted. So, what this does is it puts that law temporarily on hold.

And we should note that the justices did not to go as far as to say federal law supersedes state law. And that's notable because there's the Idaho law, but there's also 13 other states with these near total abortion bans. So, this does not settle that. You see in this opinion released today, Justice, you know, Brown Jackson say, look, this is not a celebration. This is, you know, kicking the can down the road, essentially, because you have these other states with these near total abortion bans. It doesn't settle that situation. So, we could very well see this issue back before the high court next term and beyond.

I now want to bring in our panel, CNN Chief Legal Affairs Correspondent Paula Reid and CNN Senior Legal Analyst Elie Honig.

Paula, there are still six pending opinions. This is far from over. Tell us more about what we're expecting and when we could learn what those decisions are.

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: So, it appears that we're going to go into next week. There are opinions expected tomorrow and then likely on Monday. They have these six outstanding cases, some really big ones, right? We have a big question about immunity for former president, something that could be really one of the most historic decisions in recent memory for the impact it could have on presidential power.

There's also this outstanding question of January 6th defendants who have been charged with obstruction and whether that law was properly applied, again, something that could really impact a lot of cases that have been brought by the Justice Department, including, depending on how it's decided, the case against Former President Trump.

There's also at least one big outstanding question related to social media and the ability of states to regulate social media platforms. We saw the justices kind of sidestep a question about the federal government, pressing or flagging disinformation to social media companies yesterday. But there's another social media case asking a similar but different question about whether states can force social media companies to keep conservative viewpoints on their platform.

So, there's a bunch of big questions, but one of the biggest ones is something that no one's really talking about because it's really in the weeds, but it could have an enormous impact on Americans, and that is the power of federal agencies, the deference granted to federal agencies when it comes to big questions in the government, and whether that power should go from federal agencies, to the courts, that is actually expected to likely be the last case we get because of its enormous impact on American life.

BROWN: Elie, go ahead.

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Let me try to underscore the stakes with the immunity decision, which is really the big one that we're waiting for. First of all, nobody knows. We have no idea what the court's going to do because there's no precedent. This has never come up before.

We do have civil immunity and they may adopt some of those principles, but we are completely just waiting with nothing to go on. We have no idea what they're going to do. Number two, it's going to come down tomorrow or early next week. They just can't. They've kicked the can kick the can, but they are out of street here. They cannot kick the can really any more than until early next week.

This day -- this case, when they come down with it will be studied by law students 50, 100 years from now. It will be the first of its kind. It will have enormous impact for executive powers, for balance of powers. And finally, maybe most importantly, practically in playing into tonight's debate, the decision that comes down on immunity will tell us -- will shape the campaign down the final months. Because there's a scenario, depending how the Supreme Court rules, where there still could be a narrow window if the district judge, Judge Chutkan, wants to get a trial in, she can try to hold that trial in August, September, October, which would mean Donald Trump will be on trial during the stretch run of the election.

The other alternative, again, depending how the court rules, is they could effectively make it impossible to try this case before the election, in which case we will have a more or less -- nothing's really conventional in this election, but a more or less conventional stretch run of the election.

[11:05:00]

BROWN: So, some massive cases left, right?

HONIG: Yes.

BROWN: And normally, just for our viewers, for context, I mean, normally, we would be wrapping up around now. And now we know tomorrow's not going to be the last day.

REID: Yes. No, absolutely. And I would argue that if Jack Smith tries to take Trump to trial in October, right, that late, we're going to be right back here with another question about whether you can take, you know, the presidential candidate for one of the leading parties to trial during that critical period. I think it would just open up new litigation.

But certainly, one of the biggest questions we are facing is this one about Trump immunity. But it is surprising that they have let so many cases wait this long, right? And that we're actually going to go into July, which is incredibly unusual. It appears that maybe they are having some trouble building consensus.

Remember the Supreme Court is under enormous scrutiny for a partisanship, for questions about its legitimacy and its fairness. So, the chief justice is under a lot of pressure to try to build consensus, especially across these key cases like immunity.

HONIG: Yes. We've seen throughout this term so far, some unlikely sort of cross ideological majorities. We've seen several cases where conservatives have joined with liberal justices to really yield what I guess you would characterize as a liberal or pro-Biden administration outcome.

I mean, we saw today with the abortion case, right? That was an unusual, sort of, ideological --

BROWN: Three liberals.

HONIG: Yes.

BROWN: Three conservatives coming together.

HONIG: Yes, exactly. Justice Jackson joining with Justice Alito. You don't see that too often. We saw it with the mifepristone decision. We saw it on one of the gun cases that we had last week, which sort of limited gun rights to people involved in domestic violence incidents.

So, the court is actually done a pretty good job, if we consider it a virtue, of breaking out of their 6-3 rolls, but we'll see where they go on the big one.

BROWN: Let me ask, I mean, for someone watching who might have a more cynical view, are they paving the way for, you know, what they're going to come out with on the immunity case, by -- you know, in some of these cases, given the Biden administration away than so forth?

REID: They wouldn't even keep their texts straight yesterday. I don't know that they're able to sort of engage in this kind of conspiracy or who would have the incentive to do that. I think it's ultimately up to the chief justice to try to build consensus and try to protect at least the optics and the reputation. How you do that? It's unclear if they're able to, like we said, you know, put out a couple of wins for the Biden administration before walloping Jack Smith on immunity. It's unclear if they're actually that coordinated.

But it has been fascinating to watch. I caution, though, a lot of these decisions, like the huge one we were waiting on abortion, is really a non-decision. They decided in the State of Idaho, but they left one of the biggest questions of the day, which is what do you do in the case of abortion when there are conflicting state and federal laws now that they have overturned Roe v. Wade? This is one of the biggest questions out there, and they haven't answered it except in the State of Idaho.

So, even though we did see that unusual alliance there, the question hasn't really been answered.

BROWN: Let me bring in Joan Biskupic, our senior supreme court analyst. Because, Joan, I'd love your take as someone who's -- oh, I'm sorry, Joan is not available. But just to go back to our conversation, you know, is this a court in turmoil? I think a lot of people are wondering as they're watching, everything play out.

HONIG: There's no denying that this is a troubled time for the Supreme Court, institutionally. I mean, we've seen polls, their approval rating in the American public, which matters, is at an all- time low. And one thing I've learned from my years of sort of practicing law and covering law is they're human beings. And they try to make it like they're in that big fancy marble building and they wear black robes. And so, we are just sort of these mythical creatures in the sky. They're human beings.

They watch us. I promise you they read the newspapers. They're aware of what's being said. They're conscious of reporting about them and they do think about these things. They do think about timing. They do think about how is this going to land. So, you know, we'd be speculating to get into the specifics. Well, why do they maybe release this or not release this with the debate tonight and that kind of thing. I think that's sort of an endless speculative loop. But they're human beings and they think about this.

Chief Justice Roberts has made clear, and if you've talk to Joan, who is his biographer, I believe, that his hope, his goal, was that his court would be known as one that sort of transcended ideological boundaries, but I think really the opposites happen. And by the way, this -- the ethics scandals that have been brewing are really harming the court's sort of integrity and confidence as well.

REID: And if they really are watching, if they're listening, you know, the Supreme Court is probably one of the least transparent branches of government in terms of even giving -- right. Whose vacancy or whose death potentially could cause an enormous impact on the election. If they're not even giving us explanations when they're not on the bench, they do not provide a lot of information. More transparency from the court could potentially help. I think it's reputation and trust in the high court.

Because it really is astonishing. Pam has covered it. I've covered it for a long time. Like it is astonishing how little transparency there is out of that court.

BROWN: It really is. It's so hard to wrap up a conversation among three legal nerds, but that's what I have to do, unfortunately, because there's other news going on today. Wolf.

BLITZER: Pamela, thank you very much. And welcome back to the "CNN Newsroom." Joining us now for more on this, CNN Medical Correspondent Meg Tirrell. Meg, is this a huge victory for those who support abortion rights for women?

MEG TIRRELL, CNN MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, it's not sounding that way. We're getting the reactions really pouring in this morning after we saw this inadvertent posting yesterday, there were sort of reactions to that.

[11:10:00]

But now that we know it's official, we are seeing reactions from people who are pro-abortion access and anti-abortion access, and neither one is particularly satisfied by this Supreme Court decision in the Idaho abortion case.

We're hearing from the Guttmacher Institute, which is a pro- reproductive rights group that says the Supreme Court is preserving the federal protections for emergency abortion care in Idaho for the time being, they say, "The decision is the bare minimum and the court should have been clear and affirming that the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act protects abortion in emergency situations in all states."

Now, we also have been hearing from groups that are against abortion access, including the Charlotte Lozier Institute, who's saying that they're disappointed that the Supreme Court has not rejected the Biden administration's what they call blatant attempt to hijack a law that protects mothers and babies.

So, essentially, what the court did here is say that, actually, we shouldn't have taken this case and we're going to send it back down to the lower courts in Idaho. But while we do that, we are going to keep in place federal protections for providing abortions in emergency room settings or emergency settings at hospitals to preserve the health of the person who is pregnant.

Idaho's abortion law right now contains an exception just to save the life of the person who's pregnant and rare other exceptions. And so, there's this argument that these two things are in conflict, that has not been resolved by the Supreme Court. Legal experts also point out that this leaves a lot of confusion in other states with abortion bans. There are currently 14 states that have banned abortion almost completely. There are an additional seven states that have gestational limit bans between six and 18 weeks.

And I was talking with legal scholar Elizabeth Supper at the University of Texas at Austin. She says, even in states that have health exceptions in their abortion bans, there still might be a lot of confusion here. And we're thinking about Texas in particular because the Biden administration has already asked the court to look at their abortion law as it pertains to these federal protections for emergency abortion.

So, right now, nobody seems to be particularly happy with the Supreme Court's holding here that essentially, they sort of kicked the can down the road, but in Idaho, at least, there will be those protections for women who need abortions in these emergency settings. Wolf.

BLITZER: So, elaborate a little bit more, Meg, if you don't mind, on the practical effect of this decision on women in Idaho.

TIRRELL: Yes. What we heard is that while this protection wasn't in place, St. Luke's health care system, which is one of the largest health care systems in Idaho, so that they had to airlift six patients out of Idaho to receive this kind of care, that compared with just one in the previous year when this kind of protection had been in place.

And so, we've been to Idaho. We've talked with doctors there who are practicing a family medicine. We've talked with patients who are pregnant in Idaho. And what they told us is that they're afraid to be pregnant in the state because they're worried about not having these protections and they've had to travel out of state themselves, in some cases, to access this kind of care.

BLITZER: Meg Tirrell reporting for us. Meg, thank you very much. Four opinions handed down in one day, but we still don't know what the Supreme Court will decide about Donald Trump's claims of presidential immunity. So, much more to talk about, we will, right after a quick break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:15:00]

BLITZER: Welcome back to CNN's live coverage of the major breaking news out of the U.S. Supreme Court this morning. New decisions are out that are expected to loom large potentially over CNN's historic presidential debate later tonight here in Atlanta.

One of those big announcements, the court dismissed an appeal over Idaho's abortion ban. For more on this, I'm joined now by CNN Special Correspondent Jamie Gangel.

And didn't take very long, just a few minutes, but the Biden campaign has just released a new ad dealing with this new decision on abortion rights for women in Idaho.

JAMIE GANGEL, CNN SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT: So, first of all, just on a political level, this is the kind of rapid response that the Biden campaign wants to do. And so, the decision came out, they have this ad.

It's also not a surprise because both the Biden campaign and Democrats in general see reproductive rights, even a decision like this, which was actually, in the end, a minor decision. The court said they shouldn't have taken the case and they sent it back down. But anything that touches on reproductive rights, the Biden campaign and Democrats see as a winning issue for them.

They look at public polling. 74, 75 percent of American voters believe that there should be, to some extent, these rights. And so, this is going to be something the campaign is going to focus on, not just in this ad, but tonight at the debate.

BLITZER: Do we have a clip from the ad available yet?

GANGEL: I'm not sure. We were going to -- not yet.

BLITZER: Not yet. All right.

GANGEL: But soon.

BLITZER: When we get a clip, we'll play that.

GANGEL: OK.

BLITZER: All right. Stand by for a second. I want to bring in Joan Biskupic, our senior Supreme Court analyst. Joan, tell us a little bit more about the drama that unfolded in the courtroom.

JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN SENIOR SUPREME COURT ANALYST: Sure, Wolf. It's good to see you. You know, we suspected that decision would come out today, but because of it not coming until the very last, after three others were announced, there was still was some -- you know, some suspense there. And the chief justice just tersely says the case is dismissed and he announces the lineup. But then, Justice Jackson takes that rare step of deciding to read excerpts from her dissent from the bench.

[11:20:00]

And, you know, Justice Jackson is our first -- our newest justice. She's the first African-American woman on the court. She led -- she spoke very firmly, her voice rising as she went along, to point up actually what the cost might be here to women's reproductive rights. And it really touches on that exchange you just had from -- with Meg Tirrell, from our health team, because what Justice Jackson referred to is the federal law that would presumably preempt many of these state bans on abortion, and they would protect women who had pregnancy complications, a ruptured uterus, or other fertility issues that would be impending. Justice Jackson sort of gave details of that from the bench, talking about what the loss to women would be in this compromise.

And I have to say, Wolf, for the discussion you're having there with Jamie right now, this is a political compromise of sorts. It's a legal compromise, but also a political compromise that sort of takes the abortion issue a bit away from the court for this just temporarily here.

And as Justice Jackson went on and she -- you know, she had some special guests in her Supreme Court guest seats that she looked at as she was reading, and they were sort of nodding in unison with her, she said that this court is delaying and dawdling on a key issue that will still exist. The conflict between state bans, and we now have about 14 state bans on abortion, ever since the Supreme Court two years ago struck down all constitutional abortion rights, the clash between those state bans and this federal law that would preserve emergency medical care in emergency rooms for women who are not close to death, but are facing serious health complications if they don't get an abortion.

Again, these would be very serious situations, but the way the Idaho law is written, a woman would have -- a physician could only perform an abortion to prevent a death. And, you know, she closed by saying she respectfully dissented, but it was very powerful. And one last thing I want to mention, Wolf, in speaking the way she did, and in writing what she did today, she broke from her fellow liberal justices, Alayna Elena and Sonia Sotomayor, to say that this shouldn't have been dismissed. And also, she definitely broke from the far-right conservatives led by Justice Alito, who really wanted the court to uphold the Idaho law and reject the Biden administration's case here, Wolf.

BLITZER: Joan, stand by. I'll get back to you.

BISKUPIC: Sure.

BLITZER: I want to bring back Jamie. Jamie, we now have the clip of the new Biden campaign ad just released on this Supreme Court decision on abortion rights for women in Idaho. Let's play the clip.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: In a medical emergency, seconds matter. When you're the only person in the emergency room at 2:00 in the morning, and someone comes in hemorrhaging, and they're pregnant, you're responsible.

Two years ago, Trump overturned Roe v. Wade. Because of the abortion bans across the country, women's lives are at risk.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: So, based on that clip, what's your reaction?

GANGEL: So, just to put that in perspective, the voice you're hearing there, I'm told, is Dr. Lauren Miller. She was a high-risk obstetrician from Idaho who actually left the state out of fear of facing potential criminal charges for treating patients.

Again, this is a point reproductive rights where the Biden campaign, Democrats feel they want to draw a sharp contrast. You heard the last line she said at the end "Donald Trump did this. He put women's lives in danger." Our colleague, Arlette Saenz, reports that the campaign -- the Biden campaign is also planning to air an abortion focused ad during one of the commercial breaks in the debate tonight on CNN.

So, again, you're going to see the campaign. This is rapid response, reproductive rights, they're going to come out over and over again hitting this hard.

BLITZER: Right. I suspect abortion rights for women will be a big issue between Biden and Trump later tonight --

GANGEL: Absolutely. Absolutely.

BLITZER: -- at the debate. We'll be watching, of course. All right. Thank you very much, Jamie and Joan.

The stakes couldn't be higher for both Trump and Biden as they face off in a debate here in Atlanta later tonight. Our coverage continues right after this short break. Stay with us. You're in the "CNN Newsroom."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:25:00]

BLITZER: We're just hours away from what could be one of the most important presidential debates in American history. You're seeing a live look right now over at the CNN Debate stage, where later tonight, Joe Biden and Donald Trump will make the case for why they deserve another four years in the Oval Office. The stakes couldn't be higher.

This showdown could mark a major turning point in the 2024 presidential election, as the two candidates remain, at least for now, stuck in a deadlocked race. Also new this morning, we're learning more about their final preparations going into tonight's debate. CNN is covering all of this right now, all of the angles.

I want to get right to CNN's Jeff Zeleny. He's live here in Atlanta, outside the CNN Headquarters for this debate. Jeff, how could tonight's debate change, potentially, the 2024 election? JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, if it certainly will set the tone for the remainder of the campaign.

[11:30:00]