Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

Birthright Citizenship Battle Heads to Supreme Court; Now, Trump in Abu Dhabi on Final Leg of His Middle East Trip; Zelenskyy to Send Delegation to Istanbul for Talks With Russia. Aired 10-10:30a ET

Aired May 15, 2025 - 10:00   ET

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


(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:00:00]

PAMELA BROWN, CNN ANCHOR: Happening now, breaking news, the battle over birthright citizenship heads to the Supreme Court. In moments, the nine justices will hear arguments on President Trump's plans to change how the U.S. has viewed the 14th Amendment for more than a century.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Welcome to our viewers here in the United States and around the world. I'm Wolf Blitzer with Pamela Brown, and you're in The Situation Room.

Just minutes from now at the U.S. Supreme Court, justices will hear arguments about presidential authority and the power of the lower courts to restrain that authority, can a federal judge halt President Trump's plan to end what's called birthright citizenship for babies born on U.S. soil?

Here's a reminder of what the U.S. Constitution says, enshrined in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, and it says, and I'm quoting now, all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside, close quote.

Let's go live right now to CNN Chief Legal Affairs Correspondent Paul Reid just outside the Supreme Court. Paula, the issue of birthright citizenship is almost a backdrop to this case. The real issue right now is the power of district judges to block the executive order of a president nationwide. Can you explain why that's so significant and the practical effect of play right now?

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, this is high stakes for the Trump administration, because whatever happens in this case, whatever is designed in a few weeks could have an enormous impact on how quickly and effectively President Trump can implement his second term agenda. Because while this case arrives at the court as part of a challenge to President Trump's day one order ending birthright citizenship, the issue that the justices are expected to really focus on is whether one judge anywhere in the country should have the power to block a policy for the entire nation.

These are called nationwide injunctions, and they have burdened every modern president, but none more so than President Trump because, of course, he does a lot of his policymaking through executive orders. He's already issued a record more than 200 executive orders, and those have been blocked by nationwide injunctions a record 39 times. But I will note that the past five Justice Departments have all pushed back on this idea that a single judge can block a policy for the entire country while it is being litigated.

So, this is something that the justices are going to be focused on, and as I said, this comes as part of a challenge to one of those executive orders, the day one order on birthright citizenship. And the challengers in that case say, look, if you don't have one consistent policy for the entire country, you are going to have chaos. And that's part of why they will argue that you should have nationwide injunctions. But, look, I've talked to the president's lawyers, senior Justice Department officials, they're ready to defend both that executive order and why they believe these injunctions should stop.

BROWN: Paula Reid, thanks so much. Wolf?

BLITZER: All right. Good background to what's going on. It's a major development.

I want to get some more in the story right now. Joining us is the Colorado attorney general, Phil Weiser. He's a Democrat who joined one of the legal challenges. Tell us why, Attorney General, why you signed on to this effort challenging the president's executive order on birthright citizenship.

PHIL WEISER (D), COLORADO ATTORNEY GENERAL: Wolf, this is about our constitutional freedoms. Our nation is a nation that welcomes people here and has a very clear principle in the Constitution. If you're born here, you're a citizen. My mom, grandparents came here as refugees after surviving the Holocaust, they were welcomed here. People who are here need to know this is the land that we include immigrants. E pluribus unum is our motto. This is a frontal attack on that principle.

[10:05:00]

It's disruptive and harmful to people's lives here in Colorado. I wasn't going to take this. I was going to fight in court, and now we're at the Supreme Court.

BLITZER: Do you expect the U.S. Supreme Court today to directly address the issue of birthright citizenship, or do you think they'll narrowly focus on the power of local courts, lower courts?

WEISER: Wolf, if there's a basic principle in American law, in law more generally, which is first you got to decide is there a right before you get to the question, what is the remedy? It would be extraordinary for the Supreme Court to just skip over this question about the constitutional right. I don't think they will skip over it. I think we're going to have a very clear ruling on birthright citizenship.

But what I want to emphasize here is the fact that we're talking so much about the remedy is a little bit of a tell that the underlying constitutional right that has been infringed is almost admitted to by the Trump administration. They did something lawless on the first day of this administration. They sought to overwrite the Constitution.

Today at the Supreme Court, we'll hear a little bit about that and then in the opinion, I believe they will vindicate the right, and, yes, as well get to the question about what's the appropriate remedy.

BLITZER: What specifically, Attorney General, will you be listening for from the nine Justices as they hear various oral arguments today to give you an idea of which way they're leaning?

WEISER: Well the two questions that Paul had teed this separately well, on the underlying constitutional right. I'm curious, will any justice actually try to defend what President Trump did? And we should not let this go unremarked. The president takes an oath to the Constitution, including the 14th Amendment. And if on the first day of office brazenly seeks to override the Constitution, violate the constitution, that's not a small fact to emphasize and we'll see if any justice is willing to indulge the theory that underlies that action.

The second point about nationwide injunctions, Paula said it very well, it will be chaotic. Let's just say Colorado brings a case like the one we did here to protect our citizens who are birthright citizens. But let's say Idaho doesn't. What happens if you're born in Idaho, you don't get the benefit of the ruling, you're not a citizen, but what if you move to Colorado, do you become one? It matters like this with basic constitutional rights. I don't know how you separate the nature of the relief just to those individual states because the violation of the constitutional right applies across the board.

BLITZER: Are you confident that the president, President Trump, will follow the US Supreme Court's decision no matter how they rule?

WEISER: This is a very critical case, and I think the Supreme Court needs to rule 9-0, that the Constitution was violated, President Trump's executive order is unlawful. And so far in this case, we've seen encouraging signs that we're going to have courts being followed, but I think we have to be ready because we've seen in other cases threats that court orders won't be filed, ready to make sure that those who would disobey court orders pay a price, make sure that Congress has a very clear mandate. We cannot allow a president to act above the law. We've got to be ready for that risk, Wolf, and make sure that we're vigilant and make sure we uphold our constitution.

BLITZER: The Colorado attorney general, Phil Weiser, Attorney General Weiser, thank you so much for joining us. Pamela?

BROWN: All right, Wolf. Happening now, President Trump is in the United Arab Emirates for the final leg of his Middle East trip, and this comes as White House officials say he will not attend talks between Ukraine and Russia that may take place today in Turkey. Russian President Vladimir Putin is also not attending. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is in Turkey, but had previously said he won't meet anyone from the Russian side other than Putin. Zelenskyy now then said he'll decide whether to attend the talks with the Russian delegation after his meeting with Turkey's president.

So, let's go live now to CNN Senior Reporter Betsy Klein in Abu Dhabi and CNN Chief International Security Correspondent Nick Paton Walsh in Kyiv, Ukraine.

Nick, to you first. Secretary of State Marco Rubio is in Turkey. President Zelenskyy just spoke. What is the latest?

NICK PATON WALSH, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Yes, an important development here. Yes, it is true that Zelenskyy and Putin will not meet. Trump does not seem to be in the picture at this point. But we have just heard from the Ukrainian president that he will send a Ukrainian delegation headed by his defense minister to meet the Russian delegation in Istanbul.

It's a Russian delegation hours ago he referred to as phony pointing really at the limited seniority of the people who Russia has sent to these talks. And indeed he's not sending the litany of senior officials he's brought with him to Turkey, but instead just one, Rustem Umerov.

Now, that is important because that now marks the first direct talks between Ukraine and Russia since the early days of the war where, again, in Istanbul there were direct talks. They were short-lived. Russia's demands in them were frankly maximalist, asking for limits on Ukraine's armed forces and other things that were entirely unacceptable to a country that had just been invaded, but it is key now.

[10:10:05]

Because tomorrow it seems these talks will indeed begin and they will, of course, I think Russia's critics be perhaps another bid for Russia to extrapolate this process. But it marks a development for diplomacy, but also too a sign of the limits of what Putin is willing to do. He's not attending himself, and Zelenskyy will not be going to these talks himself either.

BROWN: Yes, that sends a very strong message on where these talks stand right now. Nick Paton Walsh, thank you so much.

Betsy, to bring you in, what is President Trump saying about these talks?

BETSY KLEIN, CNN SENIOR REPORTER: Yes, Pam, President Trump arrived here in Abu Dhabi a few hours ago where he's been treated too much of the fanfare and pomp and circumstances that we've seen on the previous two legs of this Middle Eastern trip, these world leaders clearly trying to curry favor with the president. But it was in Doha earlier this morning where the president made news on a number of topics, including the possibility of these talks in Turkey between Russia and Ukraine.

To set the scene here, Russian President Vladimir Putin is the one who personally set the possibility of these talks himself. President Trump later saying in a post to social media that Ukraine should also participate.

Now, Trump himself repeatedly floated the possibility of going to Turkey for those talks, diverting this trip in a way that would be logistically a nightmare and repeatedly floating that possibility. But today, he may have been trying to save face. As he said in Doha, he didn't expect Putin to go to these talks and he wasn't disappointed that Putin would not be going. But listen to what the president told reporters a little bit later aboard Air Force 1.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: Nothing's going to happen until Putin and I get together, okay? And obviously he wasn't going to go, he was going to go, but he thought I was going to go. He wasn't going if I wasn't there. And I don't believe anything's going to happen, whether you like it or not, until he and I get together. But we're going to have to get a solved because too many people are dying.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KLEIN: And earlier today in Doha, the president again left the door open to potentially traveling to Turkey. He said if something happened, I'd go on Friday if it was appropriate, obviously something we'll be watching quite closely in the days and hours ahead.

BROWN: Yes, we sure will. All right, Betsy, thanks so much. Wolf?

BLITZER: And still ahead, we're monitoring arguments inside the U.S. Supreme Court over birthright citizenship. We'll return to them shortly. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: All right. Oral arguments of the Supreme Court have begun over this historic case centered on birthright citizenship, and whether district judges can issue these nationwide injunctions.

[10:15:04]

Let's listen in.

D. JOHN SAUER, U.S. SOLICITOR GENERAL: The courts have now issued 40 universal injunctions against the federal government, including 35 from the same five judicial districts. This is a bipartisan problem that has now spanned the last five presidential administrations.

Universal injunctions exceed the judicial power granted in Article 3, which exists only to address the injury to the complaining party. They transgress the traditional balance of equitable authority, and it creates a host of practical problems. Such injunctions prevent the percolation of novel and difficult legal questions.

They encourage rampant forum shopping. They require judges to make rushed high stakes, low information decisions. They circumvent Rule 23 by offering all the benefits but none of the burdens of class certification. They operate asymmetrically, forcing the government to win everywhere while the plaintiffs can win anywhere. They invert the ordinary hierarchy of appellate review. They create the ongoing risk of conflicting judgments. They increase the pressures on this court's emergency docket. They create what Justice Powell described as repeated and essentially head-on confrontations between the life tenured and representative branches of government, and they disrupt the Constitution's careful balancing of the separation of powers.

I welcome the court's questions.

JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS, U.S. SUPREME COURT: General Sauer, these universal injunctions, as you say, have proliferated over the last three decades or so. Would you discuss though the origins of universal injunctions, and particularly I'm interested in sort of historical analogs or the historical pedigree, particularly the bill of peace that was proffered by respondents.

SAUER: Yes. Justice Thomas. As you, I think, first pointed out in your separate opinion in Trump against Hawaii, the bill of peace is something very distinct from a universal injunction. So, the bill of peace involved a resolution of a small, discreet set of claims of a small discreet group, and even more fundamentally, it was binding on the members of that class and those represented by the class. So, it's much more analogous to a modern class action under Rule 23. And, in fact, as we've argued in other cases, and as this court has described and opinions, like Ortiz, the bill of peace evolved into and is directly developed into, so to speak, the modern class action that has all the same features of a bill of peace.

So, in the words of Chief Judge Sutton in the Sixth Circuit, the bill of peace, it was a domesticated animal that looks nothing like the dragon of a universal injunction.

JUSTICE SONIA SOTOMAYOR, U.S. SUPREME COURT: I'm sorry. Here, there's a discreet identified group on one issue. Does citizenship mean are you born in the territory of the United States or does it mean are you loyal to someone else, which is your claim, or are your parents loyal to someone else? So, that's no different than what happened in a peace -- in a bill of peace. The United States is bigger, so it extends more broadly, but it's still an identifiable group on a discreet, singular question.

SAUER: Your Honor, I'd say three things in response to that. First of all, our primary contention is that the citizenship clause related to the children of former slaves, not to illegal aliens who weren't even present as a discreet class at that time. But more fundamentally here, as to the issue of the bill of peace, there are critical differences. The bill of peace was a binding judgment that would bind absent class members. Here, we have the --

SOTOMAYOR: Well, here, class actions don't bind anyone who opts out, so class actions are not like bills of peace.

SAUER: I would think that a Rule 23B two class action, which would be the relevant analog here, would be one that would be binding on absent class members and would not have the same notice on opt-out procedures. And more fundamentally, that sort of argument that there's a commonality here among, you know, all the people who purport to be affected by this is the sort of argument that's made in class certification.

SOTOMAYOR: So, can I ask you a question? Your theory here is arguing that Article 3 and principles of equity both prohibit federal courts from issuing universal injunctions. Do I have your argument correct?

SAUER: We argue both of those and that'd be --

SOTOMAYOR: You argue both of those?

SAUER: Yes.

SOTOMAYOR: If that's true, that means even the Supreme Court doesn't have that power.

SAUER: The Supreme Court would have the authority to issue binding precedent nationwide. But as this court --

SOTOMAYOR: Well, we couldn't enforce it against universally is your argument?

SAUER: If there was a decision that violated the precedent of the court, then the affected plaintiffs could get a separate judgment means. So, that is what this court --

SOTOMAYOR: And that means you're talking about the hundreds and thousands of people who weren't part of the judgment of the court.

[10:20:05]

They would all have to file individual actions?

SAUER: Not necessarily. There are --

SOTOMAYOR: Or a class action?

SAUER: A class action would be the way that --

SOTOMAYOR: Isn't that -- that makes no sense, whatsoever.

SAUER: Respectfully, we believe that --

SOTOMAYOR: Well, that what was the purpose of the bill of peace, if not to settle a legal question finally? And if even the Supreme Court doesn't have that right and must invite hundreds of thousands of lawsuits, what are we buying into?

SAUER: If a set of claims satisfies the rigorous criteria of Rule 23, Rule 23 is the modern analog of a bill of peace. We have something very different here.

SOTOMAYOR: So, what -- no, we don't, because the argument here is that the president is violating an -- not just one, but by my count four established Supreme Court precedents. We have the one Ark case where we said, fealty to a foreign sovereign doesn't defeat your entitlement -- your parents' fealty to a foreign sovereign, doesn't defeat your entitlement to citizenship as a child.

We have another case where we said that even if your parents are here illegally, if you're born here, you're a citizen. We have yet another case that says even if your parents came here and were stopped at the border and, but you were born in our territory, you're still a citizen. And we have another case that says, even if your parents secured citizenship illegally, you are still a citizen.

So, as far as I see it, this order violates four Supreme Court precedents.

SAUER: Yes, we are --

SOTOMAYOR: And you are claiming that not just the Supreme Court -- that both the Supreme Court and no lower court can stop an executive from universally from violating that holding -- those holdings by this court?

SAUER: We are not claiming that because we're conceding that there could be an inappropriate case.

SOTOMAYOR: Only a class -- only by a class.

CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS, U.S. SUPREME COURT: Can I hear the rest of his answer?

SAUER: A Rule 23 class action. And then the more fundamental point as to all those Supreme Court decisions you referred to.

SOTOMAYOR: So, what do we do temporarily?

SAUER: Temporarily, the court may issue the lower courts may issue injunctions that remediate the injuries to the plaintiffs that appear before them. Lower courts, in appropriate cases may certify --

SOTOMAYOR: So, when a new president orders that because there's so much gun violence going on in the country, and he comes in and he says, I have the right to take away the guns from everyone, then people -- and he sends out the military to seize everyone's guns, we and the courts have to sit back and wait until every name, plaintiff gets -- or every plaintiff whose gun is taken comes into court?

SAUER: In appropriate cases, courts have certified class actions on an emergency basis. We found at least four cases in recent years where that was done. But more fundamentally, we profoundly disagree with the characterization of the merits. This is now fully briefed in the ninth circuit in case number 25-807, where we describe how that characterization of the holding of Wong Kim Ark and the other decisions is profoundly incorrect. And that is --

SAUER: You still have --

ROBERTS: Counsel, could I ask you about a different type of case that has broader impact than on the particular claimant, like a claimant who's alleging that the districting in a particular case has resulted in racial discrimination against him or her based on how the district is drawn? Now, a judicial decision about that one plaintiff would implicate the redistricting throughout the whole case. So, we just -- throughout the whole state. How does your theory address that situation?

SAUER: That would be what you might call an indivisible remedy, where what the court is doing there by, for example, redrawing the district lines is as this court set in Gill against Whitford, the only way to remediate the injury of voting in the unconstitutionally drawn district, that is similar to abatement of a public nuisance or, for example, in the school desegregation cases, where remediating the injury to the plaintiff before the court necessarily has collateral consequences to many others. And certain environmental cases might have a similar thing, for example, you stop the local plant from pouring, you know, water pollution into the water that benefits the p if it happens to benefit a bunch of other people.

Now, that's very different than what we have in these universal injunctions, where it is a divisible remedy.

[10:25:03]

I mean, I point to the holding at the district of Massachusetts in this case, looking at the individual plaintiffs, that court said, well, obviously, I don't have to give a universal injunction to protect individuals other than the individual plaintiffs. They are given complete relief by an injunction that tells federal officials only to treat their children as citizens.

JUSTICE KETANJI BROWN JACKSON, U.S. SUPREME COURT: But why -- I guess the question is why? Why does the law require that? I mean, I appreciate that a court could, in a divisible remedy kind of case narrow in to the plaintiff, but you seem to be suggesting that Article 3 or Rule 23 or something requires that. And I guess I don't really understand it.

SAUER: If I may offer two responses to that. In the Article 3 context, that is the principle announced in Warth against Seldin, announced in Gill against Whitford and Lewis against Casey, where this court has said again and again what we do in the Article 3 context is grant remedy that is tailored to -- grant remedies that are tailored to remove the injury to the complaining plaintiff. Sometimes they have even very broad collateral consequences. But in the Article 3 context, what the court has not done, and every time it's focused on this in National Treasuries union, employees union in the purpose --

JACKSON: Well, I guess I don't see why then the divisible remedies or indivisible remedies is an argument. I mean, if Article 3 is suggesting that the court has to focus in on the plaintiff only, then it would seem to me that that would be the power requirement across the board. I thought Article 3 was really about limiting the court's power with respect to jurisdiction, that we say the court has to determine whether or not there's subject matter jurisdiction over the issue and whether or not there's personal jurisdiction over the defendant. And once you have those things, the court can evaluate the merits of the legal issue and issue, especially in equity, appropriate relief. Now, I appreciate that there are some prudential concerns that the court considers, but it seems to me that in many, many, many circumstances, we have not required the court to limit their relief to the particular plaintiff as a matter of constitutional Article 3 requirement.

SAUER: I disagree with that. I offer a response both first as to Article 3 and then as to the scope of equitable authority. In the Article 3 context, this court said in Warth against Seldin, for example, that the Article three judicial power exists only to redress the injury to the complaining parties. Again in Gill against Whitford and Lewis against Casey --

JACKSON: All right. So, let me give you a hypothetical. So, suppose we have a manufacturing plant that unlawfully releases environmental toxins into the air, and we have a plaintiff who lives near the plant, brings a nuisance lawsuit and says they're being harmed by unlawful release, your argument suggests that the judgment for the plaintiff has to narrow in on preventing, to the extent possible, preventing harm to the plaintiff. But it seems to me that that's not necessarily the case. You suggest with the chief justice in response to him that there can be incidental beneficiaries, that the court could say no more toxins if it's unlawful for the defendant to do that. Correct?

SAUER: Yes, we do.

JACKSON: So, why, why, if your Article 3 principle is correct.

SAUER: Because, again, the Article 3 principle is remedying the injury to the plaintiff or set of plaintiffs could be many who are before the court.

JACKSON: Right.

SAUER: That has collateral consequences that could help.

JUSTICE AMY CONEY BARRETT, U.S. SUPREME COURT: Let me ask you on that point, would one distinction be who's bound by the judgment? Like I'm wondering whether, if the plaintiff needs -- you can only, I think Judge Straus said, and the Eighth Circuit when addressing this issue, you can't peel off part of a nuisance, so the whole thing has to be shut down. Could a neighbor sue affirmatively to hold the nuisance maker in contempt if he started to re-begin -- you know, begin again, the nuisance?

SAUER: That's a great point. It would not be bounding on those collaterally benefited parties, so to speak. I don't want to call them parties because they're not parties before the court. And that, of course, highlights one of the deep problems with the universal --

BARRETT: Could you do that? I mean, could you -- well, could you do that now for the universal injunction? Could another -- could a plaintiff, for example, who has the protection of the universal injunction, but was not named in the suit bring a contempt action of the sort I just described?

SAUER: They could not do that, but what they could do is run to any of 93 other judicial districts and bring their own lawsuit. If they --

BARRETT: No. Under the injunction as it stands, under the injunctions as they stand, could a non-named plaintiff who has the benefit of the universal injunction that's currently in place, could that plaintiff bring a contempt proceeding?

SAUER: We would --

BARRETT: Or I guess I shouldn't call them a plaintiff could, that non-party.

[10:30:02]

SAUER: We would dispute that they would have the standing to do that because of it goes to the heart of --

BARRETT: Well, no. Let's see, maybe I'm not being clear. Assuming --