Return to Transcripts main page

Connect the World

SCOTUS Issuing Final Opinions. Aired 10-11a ET

Aired June 30, 2026 - 10:00   ET

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

[10:00:00]

(MUSIC PLAYING)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (voice-over): Live from CNN Abu Dhabi, this is CONNECT THE WORLD with Becky Anderson.

BECKY ANDERSON, CNN HOST (voice-over): Welcome to the second hour of the show from our Middle East programming headquarters here in Abu Dhabi. I'm

Becky Anderson. And the time is just after 6:00 in the evening.

And any moment now, the U.S. Supreme Court will hand down its final opinions of this current term. And we are anticipating rulings on some of

the biggest cases before the court. One involves president Donald Trump's efforts to end birthright citizenship. That is the right that grants babies

born on American soil automatic U.S. citizenship.

The court also considering whether states are permitted to ban transgender students from playing on girls' sports teams. So both of those, as we get

those opinions, to you as soon as they are announced. We've got a team of experts and analysts with us to break down those rulings.

David Shultz is a U.S. constitutional law expert. He's a distinguished professor at Hamline University.

Paul Reyes is an immigration attorney and CNN opinion writer.

Also with us, CNN political commentator and democratic strategist, Maria Cardona.

Good to have you all on board. Thank you.

As we await these opinions, David, let me start with you. Of the six Trump- related merits cases decided so far, the court sided with the administration in two and against in four others.

At this point, as we await these other important opinions, what does that tell us about the legal arguments that the Trump administration is bringing

before this court?

DAVID SCHULTZ, DISTINGUISHED PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE, ENVIRONMENTAL AND LEGAL STUDIES, HAMLINE UNIVERSITY: Well, it's telling us

a couple of different things here.

Again, Trump administration has lost, like I said, roughly two-thirds of them and it's bringing before the court a lot of, I'd say, unusual

arguments that even this conservative Supreme Court Is not willing to go along with.

But having said that, I mean, some of the cases that he's won on, he's won, he's had big wins on. For example, yesterday, you know, regarding the -- or

actually last few days on some of the immigration cases, I think he's had some pretty significant wins. He had a good win, you know, for him in terms

of presidential power to remove.

But in general, it tells us that even this court, even with three of his appointees on the court, he's still not winning at a percentage that you

would see, compared to, let us say, previous presidential administrations.

ANDERSON: Raul Reyes -- and apologies for mispronouncing your name. Sincere apologies, sir. It's good to have you on board. Thank you.

Let's talk about the birthright citizenship case, then. It's laid out in the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

So what legal standing does President Trump actually have here, if any?

RAUL REYES, CNN OPINION WRITER: Well, the argument that the administration presented at the Supreme Court is based around a philosophy of what is

known as originalism, where it's really a backward-looking framework where the lawyers went back to what they said was the original intent of the

writers of the 14th Amendment.

The problem with that is that until very recently, that type of theory was not in the mainstream of American legal thought all oral arguments that

justices appeared very skeptical of their approach.

And it's really impossible to ignore the potential practical impacts of this, of ruling against birthright citizenship, which has been settled law

for 125 years, upheld repeatedly.

And in the United States, where we have such a large undocumented population, a ruling against birthright citizenship would in effect create

a permanent underclass of people who are essentially stateless because they would not be American citizens nor would they have a citizenship with

another nation.

So it seemed as though the court looked at all these arguments. And my sense is that they will rule against the administration on birthright

citizenship.

[10:05:00]

ANDERSON: David, as we speak, we're beginning to get opinions. They've just delivered the opinion on transgender athletes. They've upheld the

states in this case. Just explain what we've learned.

SCHULTZ: OK, what we learned here is that several states, including West Virginia and Idaho, passed laws that basically barred transgender male

athletes from participating in women's sports. This was challenged as a violation of Title IX.

And what the Supreme Court said -- and again, I'm skimming the decision here -- is that what the court basically argued was is that there is no

violation of Title IX and that states may reasonably make a decision to say that they want to keep transgender male athletes out of women's sports.

So this is a, depending on how you view it here, the Trump administration has been pushing hard against transgender rights, although per se this is

not a case that involved the Trump administration. So you could argue that it's somewhat of a win for the Trump Administration.

But it's certainly a blow to transgender rights in the United States. And in terms of how it changes the law, we were seeing lots of momentum in the

last few years regarding more protections in terms of anti-discrimination against transgender individuals.

That seems to be coming to a halt with the Supreme Court this term and especially with this case. This is pretty significant for people who are

concerned about transgender issues.

ANDERSON: Yes. And I'm going to give you a little bit more time to further read in on that opinion because it dropped as we were -- just before you

and I spoke.

Maria, in this transgender athletes case, public opinion, across the board, it seems in favor of the state's ban.

A recent poll says 63 percent of U.S. adults said that, quote, "State laws that prohibit transgender girls and women from participating on girls 'and

women's sports teams should be found constitutional by the court."

Your thoughts?

MARIA CARDONA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes, Becky, I think that this is one of those decisions that will have political repercussions.

And frankly, it's one of the issues that has been really difficult for Democrats and progressives on the Left to really deal with because, while

we definitely want to make sure that the transgender community is treated with dignity and decently.

And that transgender rights, just like LGBTQ rights, are increased, not decreased, to make sure that this is a community that is treated humanely.

This was an issue that the Trump administration -- and frankly, conservative Republicans -- did a really good job in politicizing against

the transgender community by using fearmongering and by talking about situations that really are very minimal when it comes to real-life

situations.

But it is understandable when you explain it, right. To the average American, it does make sense that you don't want somebody who's going to

have an advantage. If you have a kid, if you have a daughter in these sports, you're not going to want somebody that is her opponent to have an

advantage because presumably they were born a male.

So from a common sense perspective, the conservatives did a really good job in using this issue against progressives when it comes to protecting the

rights of the transgender community.

And that's what I'm worried about, that Republicans and conservatives are going to use this as a bludgeon.

And that the repercussions, the unintended consequences will be that the transgender community is going to suffer at the hands of people who are

biased, of people who don't believe that transgenders are worthy of dignity or are worthy of the same rights as everyone on this panel is. And that is

my fear.

ANDERSON: David, transgender women athletes are now excluded from women's Olympic events under a new IOC policy.

How different is this ruling from what we've seen before?

SCHULTZ: It doesn't -- again, on the surface, it doesn't look like it's different in terms of where the IOC is at this point in terms of the same

type of ban at this point. But it does raise, needless to say, some questions here in terms of going forward.

[10:10:07]

You know, for example, when I think about reading this opinion here, you know, one of the things that I think the court is emphasizing in the

majority opinion is about the unfair advantage, you know, that that males may have. I think one of your commentators is making this point.

But on one level, sports has never been about people being equal.

It's always been about saying what?

We're going to favor some who are bigger, stronger, faster, et cetera, et cetera. And I just mentioned that because I think here the court is trying

to say there's something different about transgender males participating in women's sports and somebody just being stronger or faster or quicker or

something like that.

But I think the IOC views and the majority here are basically catching a world that's not quite sure how to deal with a world that's not necessarily

binary.

ANDERSON: Maria, I'm interested in hearing further from you about the cultural and political impact that this decision could have beyond sports.

CARDONA: Yes. That's a really interesting question, Becky, because as I was saying before, this is one of those issues that kind of put

progressives and Democrats in somewhat of a pickle in terms of what they were standing for and the values that they were putting forward.

That the transgender community should have the same rights and privileges as everyone else, including in sports versus what the overall public

opinion is. And like I said before, right, it comes down to somewhat of a common sense but in a way that Republicans have really been able to

weaponize that.

I think moving forward, Becky, with this decision, ironically, it could actually be something that Democrats and progressives can kind of put aside

because if it is asked to them in terms of what they will do or what they think, well, this is now the Supreme Court decision.

And this is something that states are going to have to abide by as much as we hate it.

And so from a political standpoint, ironically, it could actually be good for Democratic elected leaders and candidates who can kind of put this

issue aside and really focus on the issues that Americans really care about, which, as we all know, are the issues of affordability and making

ends meet.

ANDERSON: That is fascinating. I think you're making a really good point there.

Look, to all of you, can you stand by?

I do need to take a very short break. We are still expecting opinions, not least on the birthright citizenship issue, a huge one for the court to

deliver its opinion on. We are expecting that -- this is supposed to be the last session -- could be pushed out, of course. But let's take a break and

come back to our panel after this.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:15:00]

(MUSIC PLAYING)

ANDERSON: Before our breaking news from Washington, the Supreme Court has issued its decision on a major case. The justices allowing states to ban

students from playing on girls' sports teams.

Back with us, David Schultz, a U.S. constitutional law expert and distinguish professor at Hamline University.

Paul -- sorry, Paul; I'm doing it again.

Raul Reyes is an immigration attorney, a CNN opinion writer.

Also with us, CNN political commentator and Democratic strategist, Maria Cardona.

And David, you, in just a bit of time to read in on the -- this opinion. You know, more about the dissent in this case, who is saying what against

the majority ruling here.

SCHULTZ: OK, a few different things. The first argument that the dissent makes is to say that the equal protection arguments here were not well

developed and therefore the case should be remanded back to the lower courts.

And the reason why the court says this -- and it kind of follows up on a point I was making before here -- is that what the court says here is that

not all transgender individuals are the same.

In the sense that some of them might have been transgendered or are -- or are in terms of changing their sexual identity before puberty versus after

puberty. And that has big implications biologically in terms of what the court was saying.

And that what the court was saying also is that by treating all transgender athletes the same, they were basically engaging in a form of sex-based

discrimination and that, instead, you have to look at each transgender athlete more, let's say, discreetly and ask, you know, how is this person

situated biologically compared to other individuals?

So the court's basic -- or the dissent's basic argument is to say here that discrimination against transgender athletes across the board like this is a

form of sex-based discrimination, deserving of what's called heightened judicial scrutiny.

And should have been allowed for the case to go back to lower courts to argue more fully both the equal protection argument and to develop, I

think, the factual record regarding these particular individuals being excluded.

So this is a very big distinction between the majority, which is saying that this is not sex-based discrimination, that Title IX never meant to

apply to sex in terms of transgender individuals and states have broad authority to be able to ban.

Versus dissent saying that, yes, sex can include, in this case here, transgender individuals. It's a possible equal protection violation and not

all transgender individuals are alike.

And therefore, any efforts to regulate need to be -- I'm going to use my word here -- more precise or more surgical than the across-the-board way

that the court adopted this in a majority opinion.

ANDERSON: And that is on the record in dissent.

Maria, I want to look -- or get our viewers to have a look at a map of which states have bans on transgender athletes' participation in girls'

sport. For the international view, that looks like a typical political divide that plagues the U.S.

Middle America wants to restrict transgender participation; West Coast, Northeast, more liberal states are, by and large, not implementing these

bans.

So how will people in these two groups of states view this ruling, do you think?

(LAUGHTER)

CARDONA: I think that they're going to be split, Becky, as is our electorate in this country, as you know. And I do think that that is going

to, I think, affect the way that the politics around this is portrayed.

And I think it will depend on where this conversation is taking place in terms of what states, where the states that are -- the bans are implemented

and where it's happening.

And, you know, David talked about how just how nuanced this argument is, which also makes it very difficult politically to split down the middle, to

walk that fine line.

Because I think the majority of the American people -- there was a Pew Research study that said that they are for protections for the transgender

community when it comes to overall discrimination on jobs and the way that they are treated publicly.

[10:20:04]

But on this very specific issue -- because, again, Republicans were really, I think, able to weaponize this in a very detailed manner when it comes to

transgender athletes in sports, especially young people's sports, a lot of parents agreed with what the high court did today.

And so it's going to take a lot more, I think, explanation, if you will. It's going to take a lot more education for the public when it comes to

what the reality is of transgender athletes participating in sports. It has a lot to do with biology. It has a lot to do with science.

And a lot of times the politics are not focused enough, are not patient enough to really understand those arguments when it comes to the first go

at it. And I think this is the first go at it nationally when it comes to those kinds of rights.

ANDERSON: I clock your line, the politics aren't patient enough, dot, dot, dot. You could sort of, you know, I think, you know, that is an

understatement across so many of the issues that we face in 2026, not just in the States but around the world, of course.

Maria, you know, I want to step back for a moment and just consider where we are at with these decisions that we have got through this session.

Not every decision broke down along ideological lines. The tariffs case was 6 to 3 with three conservatives and three liberals in the majority. That's

a big example of ideological lines being crossed.

This court is not supposed to be overtly political.

But are Americans losing faith in the idea of it being apolitical?

CARDONA: They are certainly at a point in history, Becky, where there is a heightened distrust of the Supreme Court in a way that we've never seen

before. And I do think that that is a dangerous place to be, even, as you said, many of the decisions that have come down have been against Donald

Trump and the Republicans.

But I think that has more to do with the extremist nature of what they are presenting before the high court and, frankly, before a lot of the

appellate courts around the country, where they have seen major losses versus the fairness of the high court itself, because we have seen many

decisions.

And the number one decision that we can all point to in terms of the politics of it all and where I think a lot of people really lost confidence

in the Supreme Court was when they overturned Roe v Wade. That was a tremor heard around the world, as you all know and as everyone on this panel

knows.

And that was seen as incredibly, overtly political in nature and not based on Supreme Court precedent, certainly not based on what the justices that

had just been appointed by Donald Trump had said during their hearings, that they would respect precedent and essentially saying in, you know,

certain terms that they would uphold Roe v. Wade.

And they did not. I think that was the beginning of the real decline in terms of distrust of the public, of where the Supreme Court is, vis-a-vis

raw politics.

ANDERSON: Yes.

Raul, let me bring you in. I had had you standing by very specifically to speak to the ruling on the birthright citizenship case. We are still

waiting on that opinion, of course. Now birthright citizenship laid out in the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

So before we get this opinion delivered, what legal standing does president Trump actually have here, if any?

Let's just remind our viewers.

REYES: Right. Well, when you talking about legal standing before the Supreme Court, you need to have -- to bring -- to bring a case, you need to

show that you have a group of people or a party that is actually affected and that there will be harm done in this manner or in a different instance.

As part of that standing, you need to show conflicting decisions in the lower courts. So that's basically the road to the Supreme Court. With this

Supreme Court, we are in a very -- the most diplomatic thing I can say is it's unprecedented circumstances.

[10:25:07]

Because they have again and again shown deference to the Trump administration. They have accepted many cases that, with a different court,

never would have reached the high court at all, particularly around the issue of immigration.

In my view, that is one reason why we see historic lack of public confidence in the high court. I think right now, Gallup puts it at only 44

percent of Americans trust and have faith in the Supreme Court. But with birthright citizenship, the issue is so important because this is the most

important Supreme Court case of this century so far.

It goes to the heart of who we are as Americans, who gets to call themselves an American, how we define ourselves. So, in my view, the fact

that it even -- that this case even reached the court is unusual.

Because for many years the originalists' way of thought, which the administration -- that that is their argument against birthright

citizenship -- that was a fringe legal theory. That was not taught in most universities. It was not accepted by mainstream scholars.

Just the fact that birthright citizenship has reached the court, not just this time but also last year on more procedural grounds, speaks to the

willingness of the court to entertain some of the Trump administration's policies at the judicial level.

So the states here that are challenging birthright citizen citizenship, some of the states that are against it, like Texas, they say that having

undocumented children puts a strain on their social services. They say it's a burden on their state economies.

But in these arguments, they never mention any of the incredible benefits that undocumented children who become undocumented adults also bring to

their economies by contributing by, you know, starting -- becoming part of secure and safe communities, by contributing to the nation.

So that's why I'm very skeptical, one, that this case is even back at the court.

And number two, I'm skeptical that the high court will rule against it, because that would really be a seismic shift in how -- it would be a

seismic shift in American identity. Just the fact that it -- were the court to sanction the creation of this permanent second class or underclass of

noncitizen people who live within our borders.

ANDERSON: I mean, clearly this ruling is going to have huge legal significance. And we are waiting for the court's opinion here. And I just

want to, before I return to our other guests, I just want our viewers just to hear part of the 14th Amendment.

It says, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States," The 14th

Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

David, returning to the ruling that we do have on transgender athletes, justice Kavanaugh has referred in his majority opinion to the respect that

is due all athletes, all students. Tell us about what detail you are reading into this ruling.

SCHULTZ: Well, again, what he -- again, looking at Kavanaugh's opinion, looking at the majority opinion here, I mean, what they seem to be trying

to emphasize here again is this idea that states have a pretty compelling interest in being able to regulate the integrity of sports and especially

women's sports.

And that if they're going to -- that is states -- are going to protect women, to make certain women's sports remains competitive, states, again,

have an interest in saying that transgender athletes, transgender athletes can't participate.

But the dissent then says this kind of puts the transgender athletes in a bind. They can't compete in women's sports. But on the other hand, because

of their transgender status, they also don't seem to be able to compete or have a place to compete in traditional male sports.

And so they're kind of caught in a limbo with really no place in which they can engage in any kind of sports participation.

Now what I think is also important to think about here is that, you know, we talk about Title IX, we always think about sports but Title IX is

broader in terms of addressing discrimination against women in educational institutions.

[10:30:00]

And again, what I think will be interesting to see now is to what extent does this ruling in education apply beyond women's sports?

And by the way, education, I mean, you know, what we call K-12+ college in the United States.

Will this now give states leeway to be able to discriminate against transgender athletes and other aspects of education?

Don't know yet. Right now it's only confined to sports.

ANDERSON: Yes, understood. Right.

Stand by, all three of you. We've also just learned that the Supreme Court has lifted Watergate-era caps on campaign spending. That is a new ruling on

another case, which we have not yet touched on. We're unpacking that ruling right now. David is reading into that, I'm sure, and we will discuss that

after this short break. Stay with us.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(MUSIC PLAYING)

ANDERSON: We are following breaking news from Washington. The U.S. Supreme Court issuing major opinions, the last of their term, including cases on

banning transgender student athletes and campaign finance rules.

Back with us this hour, David Schultz, a U.S. constitutional law expert and distinguished professor at Hamline University. Raul Reyes is an immigration

attorney and CNN opinion writer. Also with us, CNN political commentator and Democratic strategist Maria Cardona.

Thank you all for your insight and analysis. Hugely important to us as we move through these opinions.

David, the lifting of Watergate-era caps on campaign spending, what do we know about this ruling?

SCHULTZ: Well, this is significant. So we have to take us back a little bit in history. You know, back after Watergate, Congress passed a series of

reforms to try to limit the impact and role of money in politics. And the Supreme Court upheld a lot of those requirements in a famous case, Buckley

versus Vallejo.

And among the cases that eventually came after, it was a decision that said that Congress could ban what's called coordinated expenditures; that is,

expenditures where political parties and candidates coordinate and work together.

However, over time, the Supreme Court, especially under the Roberts court, has been chipping away at a lot of the campaign finance cases and has not

issued an opinion yet upholding any campaign finance laws.

And so what the case does today, in a 6 to 3 opinion written by justice Kavanaugh, the court argues that the ban on coordinated expenditures --

that is when candidates talk with political parties and they coordinate strategy, coordinate how they're going to spend money.

[10:35:06]

Those bans violate the First Amendment free speech clause. And what we're really seeing now is that just about the complete overturning,

evisceration, whatever you want to say at this point, of all the post- Watergate reforms to try to regulate money and politics.

I mean, we're really at a point now, especially after this opinion here, where that there is -- there are almost no limits on how money can be spent

or how it can be arranged and work together here.

Most of the listeners might know about the famous 2010 case, Citizens United, which freed up corporate spending. And so this is yet another case

in that process here.

But this overturns at least one major precedent, which is the -- what's called the Colorado 2 opinion from, I think the early 2000s, if I remember

correctly. But again, it's a significant case. But no surprise, this has not been a court, the Roberts court, that has been sympathetic or

supportive of seeking to regulate the role of money in politics.

ANDERSON: We've just got it. The Supreme Court upholds birthright citizenship.

David, I'm going to let you read in.

Raul, I'm going to bring you up on this headline response.

REYES: OK.

ANDERSON: Raul?

REYES: Yes. Yes, ma'am. For me, this really was the only decision, the only correct ruling that this court would have made, because to do

otherwise, to rule against birthright citizenship would -- is -- would be casting aside 150 years of precedent.

It would be circumventing existing statutes that we have on the -- on the books and it would be accepting what amounted, in my view, a radical

argument that the administration put before the court.

At the oral arguments, the administration's position writ large was they told the Supreme Court that, for all of these decades, high courts,

different Supreme Courts, they had been misinterpreting the law for over a century.

But that now the Trump administration, only their interpretation was the correct one. So that's a high ask of any type of institution, even more so

because it doesn't match, it does not sync with any type of reality in our nation, where we already have a large undocumented population.

Immigration, the issue itself is very contentious in the last two election cycles. And to have -- if the court had chosen to strike down birthright

citizenship, it would have created just an absolutely chaotic system in our country, where certain states could pass laws to reinstate; certain states

could go with the Supreme Court's version.

And that is wildly inconsistent with the notion of the United States. But the biggest thing that this case was about, it was just about who gets to

be American. So that's why I say that this case goes to the heart of who we are as a country.

So it -- preserving birthright citizenship, I think skeptical people can look at this. If you're not a fan of this court at all, you might say,

well, the Supreme Court basically just upheld the fact that the sky is blue. So you can say that, you know, this ruling had to be --

(CROSSTALK)

ANDERSON: Yes.

REYES: -- but at a very practical level, this -- it -- this will, going forward, bring some measure of stability to undocumented people, their

families, American businesses and the states that are wrestling with this issue.

ANDERSON: Yes. And I want to get Maria's take on just how significant a ruling this is.

Before I do that, Maria, stand by.

David, you've been reading in with your sort of, you know, legal eyes and hat on.

What have you learned?

SCHULTZ: OK, a couple of things. First, it's a -- it's a 6 to 3 opinion. But what's significant about this is that the court decided this on

constitutional grounds.

And the reason why I say this is that there was some concern that the court could use what's called the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment as the

basis of its decision or instead use a federal law which basically says the same thing.

The court opted to go with a constitutional argument, which is important because the only way a decision rendered on constitutional grounds can be

overturned is if it's -- is through constitutional amendment or if the court reverses itself.

So this is a pretty firm opinion. But what the court says here is a couple of things. First, let's look at the historical context.

[10:40:00]

This citizenship clause was passed as part of the Civil War amendments and in part to overturn an infamous case called Dred Scott versus Sanford,

where basically in Dred Scott, the court said that people who are descended from Africa, i.e. slaves, were property, could never be persons, no matter

what.

And so after the Civil War, when this clause was adopted, the court points out here the citizenship clause was meant to overturn Dred Scott to make it

firmly clear that people who born in the United States are citizens of the United States and we don't have second class citizens.

And then the court also points out how there's been several other constitutional cases that have reached the same conclusion.

So that's where I think it's very, very significant from a legal point of view, is the fact that the court renders this on both -on -- first on

constitutional grounds, does it by looking at sort of, let's say, the plain text of the Constitution, its historical -- or the amendment, its

historical meaning and based on precedent.

There's lots of different components to this decision that make it a very, very strong decision. So it's not just, again, statutory, not just one

constitutional argument but multiple constitutional arguments.

ANDERSON: Yes. Understood.

Maria, how significant a political loss is this ruling for president Trump?

CARDONA: Becky, this is huge. And I have to say, as a naturalized citizen myself, when this decision came down, I had tears in my eyes.

Because, while I wanted to be certain that what my friend, Raul Reyes, has been saying all along was going to be true, because of what we have seen in

past decisions, including Roe versus Wade that I had mentioned earlier, I wasn't completely 100 percent confident that the Supreme Court was going to

do the right thing here.

So I am beyond thrilled, not just personally for my family, for every naturalized citizen in this country but for America, because this is

fundamentally connected to our American values, Becky.

This was going to be so -- it was going to be a political earthquake if this went the other way. And it would have created, as Raul said, a huge

second class citizenship in this country. It would have been a complete and total demotion of what it means to be American.

And that has not happened, thankfully. And so I think it's a tremendous political and personal loss for Donald Trump, for Stephen Miller, who we

all know has been the immigration whisperer into Donald Trump's ear.

He is the one who has really been the architect of the extremism, the xenophobia, the racism that has all of these decisions and executive orders

based on wanting to exclude and kick out every single immigrant in this country.

And that's where I believe this administration wanted to go. And the Supreme Court, even the justices that they have appointed, the overall

court has said, no, that is not what we're going to do in this country. That is not what the Constitution says. That is not what American values

stand for.

And so for that, I could not be more happy personally. Politically, I am also thrilled because it is going to be a tremendous message for Democrats

going into not just the midterm elections, Becky, but the presidential election in '28.

Where we can still use as an anchor around many Republicans that they stood by without standing up to immigrants in this country, including legal

immigrants, because we still see that this administration is trying to strip away legal protections from many immigrants who have worked hard and

contributed millions to our economy.

This administration is still in a war against them, so we still have to fight. But this is a tremendous message, political message, Becky, for

Democrats, for even independents who understand the massive value and contributions that immigrants have made and continue to make to this

country.

And if it weren't for that, we would not be the United States of America.

ANDERSON: And a reminder, I mean, Maria is a Democratic strategist.

So when you talk about we as Democrats, I just wanted to explain, you know, the framing there. But I hear you as well.

When you talk about we as U.S. citizens, I hear you loudly.

[10:45:00]

And I'm sure your viewers do as well. And I genuinely hear, you know, the relief and emotion in your voice, Maria.

And Raul, I know this must be a very emotional day for you as well. Public opinion appears to be firmly on the side of preserving birthright

citizenship.

A recent Marquette Law School poll found that 68 percent of Americans. That's more than two-thirds believe the 14th Amendment guarantees

citizenship to anyone born in the U.S.

Does that not have any bearing on how this debate then moves forward?

Or do you see this purely as a constitutional question?

REYES: I really do not see this debate going forward any more because of the -- of the ruling itself. It is so thorough. It decides it on the

constitutional grounds. So I feel as though this is now officially a settled issue.

And, you know, the more we talk about it, I too, I feel emotional about it when I think of my own Mexican American heritage and so many of the

activists and people I have met who are immigrants or children of immigrants.

And I think big picture, we should look at this not just as, you know, a win or a loss for the Trump administration. This for me, this is a win for

the United States. This is a win for our Constitution.

This whole case began with an executive order that the president signed when he first entered, when he first took office in his second term. He was

asking for, you know, a sense to overturn parts of our Constitution and the law just with the stroke of his pen.

So this is, for me, big picture, also just a win for separation of powers that the branches of government can still function, serve as a check on

each other.

And coming right before the America's 250th anniversary, this for me is just a very affirming moment that that our government can still function as

our founders intended and still uphold the law and respect the dignity of all Americans.

ANDERSON: Four days out from Independence Day, 250 years after a divorce, of course, from the U.K.

David, are you reading some powerful comments from justice Roberts?

We can isolate this portion.

Quote, "Citizenship then and now was the right to have rights, to freely participate in our political community."

Roberts wrote for the court, quote, "The framers of the 14th Amendment extended that promise to, quote, 'every free born person in this land.' We

keep that promise today."

Just your thoughts.

SCHULTZ: Yes. No, this is important because, again, what he was talking about is that, again, originally when the citizenship clause was adopted,

it was to basically address what we'll call -- what the court has called the badges of slavery.

The fact that we treated people of African American descent as, what, not even as persons but as saying they were property, in fact, the court says

that in the Dred Scott opinion, that the citizenship clause overturns.

And that the promise of reconstruction, the promise of the Civil War, that Roberts is saying is, was to say that that people, based on their skin

color, are part of the American society.

And then updating it in terms of his language here, is that the promises of the citizenship clause is to say that what -- we're not going to create two

societies, separate and unequal. We're not going to say that there are some who are citizens and who are here and enjoy certain rights and that we're

going to exclude others.

And so to me -- and again, again, it almost seems like he was writing this in anticipation it would get close to the 4th of July. You almost see a

sense of what patriotism, in his speech here, where he's saying that this idea of saying that we're all citizens, if we're all born here, I think

he's saying something to the effect of this is the American way.

This is what the American promise is all about, that if we think about the story of America as a story of immigrants coming to the United States for,

what, you know, for a better future, that's what he's trying to harken in that language here.

That's the -- what's the language that goes back about 300 years, 400 years of what America is the last, best hope for many people. And that's what the

citizenship clause is about. And that's what Roberts is trying to capture there.

ANDERSON: This is all fascinating and really important. Massive opinion delivered on the last day of this session.

[10:50:03]

Good to have you all on board, folks.

You're watching CONNECT THE WORLD. There is more news ahead. Stay with us.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(MUSIC PLAYING)

ANDERSON: Following breaking news from Washington, a very big day at the U.S. Supreme Court, issuing major opinions. The most recent, a huge rebuke

of president Trump's effort to end birthright citizenship for millions of Americans.

Back with us, David Schultz, Raul Reyes and CNN political commentator and Democratic strategist Maria Cardona.

And David, three conservative justices, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, dissented from the decision upholding birthright citizenship.

Briefly, what do we know about this dissent?

SCHULTZ: OK. What the dissenters argue is that the situation of the citizenship clause, which meant to grant citizenship to individuals who had

formerly been slaves, is of a different historical context.

And these individuals, the freed slaves, are different than the children of people who are temporarily in the United States.

And what the court wants to argue is to say that this factual difference is pretty significant, that the individuals who are -- who are in the United

States, you know, are, are not properly, while they might be domiciled here, they may be living here, they're not legally in the United States and

therefore they should not be entitled.

That is, their children should not be entitled to birthright citizenship because they're not, because their parents were not legally in the United

States. So the court, again, I haven't gotten through all obviously the dissent. I'm kind of doing a quick skim here, of course.

But the court seems to the dissenters, I should say, seem to be making a big distinction on that difference, that freed slaves and the purpose of

the citizenship clause, those individuals are very, very situated differently, compared to, again, children of parents who are not legally

residents or legally domiciled in the United States.

That seems to be the basis of their decision. It's a very long dissenting opinion. But I think I'm capturing most of the basis of it.

ANDERSON: Got it.

Ninety seconds, Raul, what has the court done today in terms of its own legacy, to your mind?

REYES: I think the court has upheld the legacy, the legacy and the promise of the United States. The idea that we are all as Americans, we are all

born equal.

As we come up on Independence Day, remember, one of the reasons we fought the Revolutionary War is because the founding fathers very much believed in

the principle that, in the United States, it doesn't matter who your parents are.

We are all born equal. That is our society. So to me, this whole decision is about more than just citizenship. It speaks very much to the ideal of

America, of the United States, of who we are as a nation.

ANDERSON: And Maria, last 90 seconds for you, as we close out this show. Trump saw this ruling coming but it's not the end of his immigration

policy.

[10:55:00]

Correct?

CARDONA: That's exactly right, Becky. Again, I'm thrilled. I think this is a terrific day not just for immigrants but for the country. It has upheld

American values.

But I have to say that I'm disappointed that the decision was not 9-0 or at least 8-1 or 7-2. I think 6-3 is a little close for comfort. But a win is a

win and I will take it. To your point, it's not the end of Donald Trump trying to push his immigration, his extremist immigration agenda, to the

extreme.

And I think politically, this is going to give Democrats, independents and common sense Republicans, I think, the ability to push back and say that

the president is not in the right place when it comes to immigration, when it comes to immigrants, when it comes to the values that immigrants bring

and their contributions.

And politically, if Republicans don't try to paint a broader, bigger, brighter picture of how immigrants and immigration have contributed to this

country, they're going to continue to be in trouble politically in the upcoming midterm elections and in the 2028 presidential elections as well.

ANDERSON: What a joy to have spent the last hour or so with you three. Thank you so much from our international viewers for your insight and

analysis.

That's it for CONNECT THE WORLD. Stay with CNN. "ONE WORLD" is up next.

END