Return to Transcripts main page

Inside Politics

Justices Say Trump Has Power To Fire Heads Of Independent Agencies; Supreme Court Expands Trump's Power Over Regulators; Justices Say Trump Can Fire FTC Commissioner, But Not Fed Governor; Roberts Court Deals Trump Another Win On Presential Power; Democratic Socialists Score Wins In NY Democratic Primaries; DOJ Faces Court Deadline On Releasing Additional Epstein Documents; Supreme Court Lets States Receive Ballots Mailed After Election Day. Aired 12-12:30p ET

Aired June 29, 2026 - 12:00   ET

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

[12:00:00]

MANU RAJU, CNN ANCHOR, INSIDE POLITICS: The Supreme Court deals President Trump another big win. He can fire any regulator he wants, but with one exception.

I'm Manu Raju in for Dana Bash. Let's go behind the headlines at Inside Politics.

The Roberts court has made no secret of its desire to expand presidential power and its willingness to overturn decades old precedents just to do that. Now, the latest example, the Supreme Court ruled 63 that President Trump had the power to fire a Democratic commissioner on the Federal Trade Commission.

They overturned a 91-year-old decision allowing it. It means presidents can fire heads of agencies that had been considered independent, with one exception; divided five to four courts, so the president cannot fire Fed Governor Lisa Cook. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh switched sides to carve out that exception.

CNN's Paula Reid is there at the Supreme Court. So, Paula, tell us about your major takeaways from these key rulings.

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Manu, this is a big day. Its clear, President Trump has lost a few battles here this term at the Supreme Court, but he is winning the war to expand executive power. These opinions about who Trump can and cannot fire, these will be some of the defining opinions of the Roberts court. Because here the question hanging over the entire really second Trump term has been exactly who can he fire, are there any limits on his power?

And here today we get an answer from the Supreme Court that President Trump describes as quote, a big win, because here in one case they ruled that he cannot fire an official from the Federal Reserve without giving that official the proper process, the opportunity to respond. In the opinion he writes, quote. Chief Justice Roberts writes, acceptance of the government's position here would in effect transform the Federal Reserve's for-cause protection into at-will employment, an interpreted leap out of step with the statute Congress enacted, and our nation's tradition of central banking protected from political interference.

So, what they're saying is that the Federal Reserve occupies a special place, so that the president cannot just go in and unilaterally fire people. There has to be a process. But in a separate opinion about a different official who worked for an agency within the executive branch, they said that in fact he does have the power to fire her.

So, it's notable they're drawing some limits around his power, but taken in totality, this is an expansion of his power, and what has been believed to be the limits on the president's ability to fire federal officials. Now, I noted, Manu, that he did lose some battles here today. The administration lost an effort to curb the counting of mail-in ballots that post marked before election day but arrive after election day. That's significant, because if they had won there, we were expecting that they could try to target other forms of non- election day voting.

We know the Trump Justice Department has been really focused on elections, and of course, the Supreme Court also declined to take up his appeal of that $5 million verdict that a jury returned against him for sexually abusing and defaming E. Jean Carroll. He now needs to pay that money, but he's going to send up likely a similar appeal on the $83 million verdict that he received, that money he's supposed to pay E. Jean Carroll, he's expected to appeal that separate verdict up here to the Supreme Court in the coming days.

RAJU: A lot of news this morning. Paula Reid, thank you so much for breaking that down. I'm joined in the room by a terrific group of reporters and our top-flight legal analyst Elliot Williams, who's been pouring through these decisions. Huge day. Just give us the sense you're looking through this. What are the major implications of these two cases?

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Right. Everything Paula said co- sign. I think certainly it's the expansion of the idea of presidential power. You've heard the terms throughout the day. This idea of a unitary executive theory, the idea that the president is solely in charge of the executive branch and has the power to fire what were once thought of in some ways as independent agencies, but the Fed is different, and that is something that came through very clearly today that the Federal Reserve is just carved out as a separate type of entity.

And they talk about a few different reasons why it's not funded, for instance, by congressional appropriations like other agencies are. Other agencies, such as the Federal Trade Commission Rebecca Slaughter was fired from -- perform what are called executive functions. They act as if they are an arm of the president. And the Supreme Court, which, let's be clear, has had an expansive notion of executive power, starting with Chief Justice John Roberts, going back to his days as a White House lawyer.

[12:05:00] You know, they regarded entities like the Federal Trade Commission as just not usurping executive power but just acting as an arm at the White House or an arm of the executive branch and that they sort of dialed that back in, but they do treat the Federal Reserve very different.

RAJU: Yeah. And I want to ask you about that because just to look at some viewers, see how the justices voted in these two cases, five-four in the case involving whether Trump can fire Lisa Cook. Five members in -- five justices in the majority there, and Roberts and Kavanaugh joining the liberals in the majority. And then the six-three on whether they can fire an independent agency officials and those two, Roberts and Kavanaugh, siding with the conservatives there.

And Amy Coney Barrett had that dissent about the differentiation. What is the differentiation between firing independent agencies and an independent Fed. She said in her dissent in the Trump v. Cook case. She said the court's holding is in serious tension with Trump v. Slaughter, which we also decide today. How can history support both a categorical rule and a carve out? Elliot Williams, can you explain.

WILLIAMS: I can't, because they really -- again, a big part of this and we can talk about Brett Kavanaugh a little bit, winking at the fact that the Fed is just different. The Fed -- and this excites Phil Mattingly, the Fed, but this is true. No, but it's true that the Federal Reserve has that, like the idea of political interference at the Fed, or the idea that the Fed is an arm of the president, has the power to upend global markets.

Now, that is not a legal point, that is a policy point, but the justices must have had in the back of their minds this idea that when you start suggesting that the Federal Reserve is not independent of the White House, the president of the United States, you have the power to cause great harm to global economic markets. I think that's what's looking in the back of their head.

RAJU: Yeah. And Phil, as you jump in here, as Elliot was alluding to. This is what Kavanaugh said in that concurring opinion in Trump v. Cook in the Fed case. Saying, I would not risk destabilizing the United States economy just so that we can further mull over an issue that in various permutations, we have been thinking about for many years. Phil, you know the Fed better than pretty much anybody. What are the implications here of this ruling?

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN ANCHOR & CHIEF DOMESTIC CORRESPONDENT: That answer, and I think when we were trading emails earlier, Elliot put it perfectly, it was the quiet part out loud of why this differentiate. To answer Amy Coney Barrett and Manu Raju, very similar in terms of upbringing and status question.

RAJU: I didn't go to --

MATTINGLY: Why are these two cases different? Brett Kavanaugh is saying why they're different, and he's saying why he voted the way he did on this Fed case. Look, there is a reality here, which is, it is not the judiciary, nor is it the legislative branch and statute, nor does the executive branch, who dictates whether or not the Fed is considered the independent institution on monetary policy that is the most important in the entire world. It is the markets that decide that. And if the markets decide that there is now a very real possibility, or just an outright green light for a president to interfere in the monetary policy directly, markets are going to go sideways.

Now, to Elliot's point, that's not written anywhere, but that is why there has always been this implied carve out, and then in the CFPB case, a couple of years ago on the Supreme Court, it was a footnoted carve out that the Fed is different. Here's the thing, I think it's important to note, though. Based on the oral arguments, which I think we were all listening to and talking about on live television as they were happening, this is a lot closer than I expected it to be.

Five-four, and the way that this was written, it does not define what causes. It does not weigh in on the merits. It does not preclude the administration from moving forward, as the president has already said on Truth Social. They are immediately going to do. It knocks them for making very, very weak, no due process arguments. But otherwise, this is a process decision, which we expected it to be on some level, but it in no way means that this is over, and I think that's a big deal going forward.

RAJU: And I think when I talk about just the impacts of the other decision too, which is the Federal Trade Commission decision because now Trump can fire potentially anybody he wants in a number of agencies. These are the some of the independent agencies that could be impacted because they have various people who serve on those boards and commissions that are appointed, they're supposed to be quasi- independent agencies.

Trump celebrating this about his growth in executive power, saying on Truth Social, showing the importance of this case. He says 90 years of president has been completely and unequivocally overruled, greatly increasing presidential power at a time when it's most needed.

TIA MITCHELL, WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF, THE ATLANTA JOURNAL- CONSTITUTION: I mean -- I mean, at the end of the day, that's what Trump has been trying to do. I think he's done it while these court cases have taken a while to proceed. A lot of these people have already been out of a job. So, the Supreme Court was kind of their last hope and now that's gone. And I mean, I think it just shows how much Trump has revamped the presidency forever, you know, bearing Congress could "fix it" but we know that's unlikely.

[12:10:00]

And so, I think some of these precedents and rules are gone forever, and I do think it does further add to people skepticism about the true independence of the Supreme Court. When these rulings do look like they are not just based on strict interpretation of what's written, but they are clearly making policy and political calculations. And I mean, on this one, you know, Lisa Cook is spared temporarily, at least, but it does seem like there's -- I think a lot of people are watching and are like, OK, this is what we knew all along. RAJU: Yeah.

MITCHELL: They're going to do what they want to do and then find out the justification.

RAJU: A very quickly.

WILLIAMS: Yeah, quickly. How they're different. It's that, yeah, Rebecca Kelly Slaughter was fired on account of simply being just not a priority of the administration. We do not agree with her, therefore we're firing her. Lisa Cook, there was allegations of impropriety with mortgages. But, you know, to Phil's point, this is a question of, she hasn't had due process and an opportunity to challenge it. She still may end up getting fired if a court looks at it and finds that those alleged improprieties are enough to constitute cause for her termination.

RAJU: And Trump just said on Truth Social that he may try again to fire her, so we'll see if this ends up back in court. All right, coming up. I'll speak to a top House Democrat about the Supreme Court ruling that could transform how President Trump wields power. Plus, Georgia Senator Jon Ossoff throwing out the traditional purple state playbook. My exclusive interview is still to come.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:15:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

RAJU: Welcome back. Joining me now with reaction to today's Supreme Court ruling is Democratic Congressman Robert Garcia of California. He's the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee. Thank you so much for being here. Mr. Garcia, I first want to get your reaction on the Supreme Court victory for the president, that he can fire Democratic FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter without cause. Why you think -- I wonder, I assume you disagree with the Supreme Court on this, and why shouldn't the president have that authority to fire officials who work for the executive branch?

REP. ROBERT GARCIA (D-CA): Well, first, traditionally, these boards have been really important. These commissions have been critical in a variety of different areas of governance of independent monitoring, of course, watchdog agencies. And so, when you look at organizations like the Labor Relations Board or the National Transportation Safety Board, traditionally presidents have made appointments, they have been independent, they have done important work, oftentimes it's a check and balance system, and this ruling is horrific for the idea that there should be balance in government to expand presidential power this way.

And certainly, for someone like Donald Trump, who does not believe all the time in facts or science or listen to advisors, is going to really cause damage across this government. I mean, take the National Transportation Safety Board, which oftentimes doesn't get a lot of attention. I mean, these folks investigate crashes, they investigate emergencies that happen in our skies and other places across this country. And the idea that Trump can just come in and fire whoever he wants or not replace folks, I think is very concerning.

RAJU: All right. I'm going to shift the gears a little bit. Mr. Garcia, I do want to talk about a lot of the news that's been happening in Democratic primaries across the country, and that is Democratic socialists who have been winning in some of these races that we have seen. We could see a Democratic socialist actually unseat your colleague Diana DeGette in Colorado tomorrow. And last week you proclaimed that this shows your party is a quote, big tent party. But I'm wondering if you think this is really a good thing for your party to see more socialists in the ranks.

GARCIA: Well, look, I think what I said was, first, I want to honor the service of two members that have been great members of our caucus, to what I know, and have worked really hard, obviously -- obviously Representative Adriano Espaillat (Ph) and Dan Goldman. And at the same time elections, elect people from their communities, and when folks win, like what happened in New York or other places, whether it was Utah, New York, or Maryland, and we have new members coming in. I think it's our job is to welcome them.

They were elected by the folks in those constituencies. And so, as Democrats, they're going to be members of our caucus and it's important that we welcome them as part of our caucus. We have to have a big tent.

RAJU: But Mr. Garcia, I mean, you know, politics is perception in a lot of cases. Won't voters think your party is getting more extreme?

GARCIA: At the end of the day, the voters of districts elect their nominees. And who are we to tell the voters of, whether it's in New York or Maryland or Utah, who is -- who is their best person to represent them. But at the end of the day, voters are going to choose their nominees, and those nominees then come to the Congress. And it's our job to bring them in to ensure they have the information they need to make good decisions, and to build a good caucus, and to win elections and the majority in November.

RAJU: You mentioned New York. There is one Democratic socialist who won in New York, is getting quite a bit of attention, Darializa Avila Chevalier, who, according to our KFILE team has posted in recent years some pretty radical positions. He's called for a world without prisons, called for no more police at all ever, and said that the U.S. should abolish its borders, even using phrases like seizing the means of production. So, are those the kind of viewpoints you personally would welcome in the House Democratic caucus?

[12:20:00]

GARCIA: Well, look, I obviously don't share those views. I also think that she has clarified a lot of those remarks, and a lot of the tweets or statements she has made, she has said publicly. She has learned from some of those. She is in a different place in her perspective. And at the end of the day, becoming a member of Congress is an incredibly serious moment. And so, what I think our job is, as members of Congress, is to welcome any person that has been elected by their constituency and bring them in and ensure that they are supported, so they can represent their constituents. That's our plan. It's certainly going to be mine.

RAJU: All right. So, I do want to turn to ask you about an issue you've been involved with heavily, the investigation of the Epstein files. A federal judge has ordered Acting A.G. Todd Blanche to release additional Epstein-related files by Thursday. You have said you believe half of the Epstein files have yet to be released by the DOJ, but there have been about 3.5 million files already released by the Justice Department. So, what is actually in these files that you say Todd Blanche is withholding?

GARCIA: Well, the reality is that we don't know. I mean, look, Todd Blanche has said that some of them are duplicates or it's privileged information. Well, then show us those files and release them. If they're duplicates, release the files, release the actual whatever -- they can't be holding documents for whatever they believe should be privileged or interagency communication. At the end of the day, they have not fully released all the Epstein files. They've released half of them.

And in addition, what they've actually released in many cases has been harmful. They have actually docked some of the women. It's put some of their families in danger. They have made all sorts of redactions that have been incredibly irresponsible. And so, our request is simple, follow the law that was passed and release all of the documents to the public, and they have yet to do that. So, we're going to continue to push every single day until the documents are fully released.

RAJU: And I know you want Todd Blanche to come before the committee. The Republicans have criticized the way you dealt with Todd Blanche when he came behind closed doors with your committee earlier. What do you say to them who believe that you -- your push for him to come again before the committee is more theatrics, more than anything else?

GARCIA: I mean, that's completely ridiculous. Todd Blanche, when he tried to come before a committee, he said he was going to host a round table. It was not under oath, it was not open to the public, it was not going to be videotaped, and he would not answer questions. And so, I'm not sure if the Republicans want to have these kind of round tables that basically are not under oath, where people are with no accountability.

We're not going to play that game. We want truth and justice for the survivors, and so our demand is simple. We want an under-oath interview or deposition that's then videotaped and accessible to the American public. Everyone, including Republicans, should want transparency. And by the way, the chairman of the oversight committee now agrees with us. He's also asking Todd Blanche and saying publicly that he wants Mr. Blanche to come in and testify, and it should be done under oath. That is what our request is. We'll continue to be making that. There's no reason why Todd Blanche should not be in front of the oversight committee to answer questions about the Epstein --

RAJU: We haven't seen a subpoena yet. We'll see if that ultimately gets to that. Congressman Robert Garcia, we have to leave it there. Thank you so much for joining me this afternoon. Really appreciate your time.

GARCIA: Thank you.

RAJU: And what President Trump is using the Supreme Court's rejection of his mail-in ballots attacks to go after some Senate Republicans? Well, that's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:25:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

RAJU: Returning to the rulings out of the Supreme Court today. In a five-four decision, the court ruled states may count mail-in ballots that arrive after election day. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the majority, quote, the federal election day statutes do not prevent Mississippi from counting absentee ballots postmarked by election day but received up to five days thereafter. Nothing in federal election day statutes requires ballots to be received by election day, the electorate's choice is made when voting is complete, not when ballots are received. Now, the opinion is a surprising rebuff of President Trump's longstanding attack on mail-in voting.

My excellent panel is back. Elliot, this is how the vote -- the justices voted in this case. It was raw -- just Chief Justice Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett, who sided with the liberals in this five-four decision here. And these are the states that could be impacted here because there are 14 that allow for mail-in ballots to arrive after election day. You can see the number of states really all across the country, and another 16 states do allow for military and overseas ballots to come in after election day. Were you surprised by this?

WILLIAMS: Yeah, a little bit, and surprised by the breakdown? It's fascinating. You know, it seems like the court, when they go six- three, they're on ideological lines. When they go five-four, there's this hodgepodge of strange bedfellows, as we saw here.

Now, to be clear, it's important to look at what the court did not do. They did not issue a sweeping pronouncement about mail-in voting or about when election day is or what election day means. They merely decided that for the state of Mississippi, which is the state at issue here, that five days is fine and works. And what is relevant for determining when an election happens is, are the votes cast and do they arrive within a period that comports with state law, that's it. They have not said -- they didn't say that, OK, five days is OK, but a week is not, or two weeks is not, or a month is not.

And perhaps you see future legal challenges to other states and their rules there, but as of right now, it's just, you know, an election is defined as the electorate picking its candidate of choice. And that's it, not necessarily one day.

RAJU: And if Trump reacted to this, we reiterated his support for the issue that has really just dogged.