Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

CNN International: Justices Appear Deeply Divided Over Emergency Abortion Care Case; Pro-Palestinian Protests Sweep Across Universities; Biden Signs Foreign Aid Package Sending $1 Billion To Ukraine; Biden Signs Bill That Could Ban TikTok In US. Aired 3-4p ET

Aired April 24, 2024 - 15:00   ET

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

[15:00:41]

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN INTERNATIONAL HOST: It is 8:00 p.m. in London, 11:30 p.m. in Kabul, 3:00 a.m. in Beijing, 3:00 p.m. here in Washington.

I'm Jim Sciutto. Thanks so much for joining me today on CNN NEWSROOM.

And let's get right to the news.

We are monitoring large-scale pro-Palestinian demonstrations across American college campuses driven by arrests at Columbia University's student anti-war encampment. Heavy law enforcement presence at the scene of these protests that so far have largely appear to be peaceful. We're going to read turn to the story later in the program as you see some pictures there coming into us.

Also today, deep divisions visible at the U.S. Supreme Court, both outside and inside the chambers, as the nine justices heard the second major case on abortion since overturning Roe v. Wade two years ago. Today, the court weighs a near-total abortion ban in the state of Idaho with a narrow exception only to save the mother's life.

The Biden administration says that Idaho law violates a federal law known as EMTALA, which requires that hospitals provide emergency medical care to stabilize patients even in non life-threatening situations.

It was part oral argument, part grilling with the three liberal justices, as well as at times Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the four women on the bench, aggressively scrutinizing Idaho's claim.

Here's Justice Elena Kagan sparring with Idaho's attorney, Joshua Turner.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

JUSTICE ELENA KAGAN, U.S. SUPREME COURT: Your theory of EMTALA is that EMTALA preempts none of it, that a state tomorrow could say, even if death is around the corner, a state tomorrow could say even if there's an ectopic pregnancy, that still that's a -- that's a choice of the state and EMTALA has nothing to say about it.

JOSHUA TURNER, CHIEF OF CONSTITUTIONAL LITIGATION AND POLICY: Yeah, and that understanding is a humble one with respect to the federalism role of states as the primary care providers for their citizens, not the federal government.

KAGAN: It may be too humble for women's health, you know?

(END AUDIO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: Following all of this with me, CNN's Jessica Schneider.

So, Jessica, the court clearly divided on this issue as so many others, both ideologically but potentially along gender lines as surprised as sounded Justice Amy Coney Barrett seemed skeptical of Idaho's argument, given she's largely voted conservatively on this court. Some of this is tea leave reading, right? When you hear the questions and you cant know how justices is going to decide based on the questions that they ask, but you get some indication.

As you listen to the breadth of the arguments here, did you sense where the court might end up?

JESSICA SCHNEIDER, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: It was really hard to tell Jim. I mean, we've heard a lot of arguments were often you can tell, this one did seem deeply divided. Of course, Amy Coney Barrett, though, she could be one of the deciding votes here along with the chief justice John Roberts. Both of them ask several questions about the implication of Idaho's law. In particular, they really homed in on who exactly is judging these doctors when they decide if a women's condition is life threatening enough to justify an abortion.

Of course, that's a split-second decision many of these doctors are forced to make. And because they know the legal implications are just huge with up to five years in prison, loss of their medical license, most doctors in Idaho are actually hedging on the side of not performing these abortions, even if the woman's life is at risk.

You know, we heard from the solicitor general. She said that many hospitals in the state of Idaho are now airlifting, at least one woman every other week out of Idaho, and into a state where they can get an abortion in the event that there's this emergency situation because the doctors there just aren't taking chances and that amount of airlifting is actually way up from previously year.

So here's some of the questioning from Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

JUSTICE SONIA SOTOMAYOR, U.S. SUPREME COURT: What you are saying is that there is no federal law on the book that prohibits any state from saying even if a woman will die, you can't perform an abortion.

TURNER: Your Honor, I know what no state that does not include a lifesaving exception. But secondly, the government --

SOTOMAYOR: Some have been debating it at least and if I find one, but your theory of this case leads to that conclusion.

[15:05:03]

TURNER: I think our point is that EMTALA doesn't address those barriers.

SOTOMAYOR: Thus your theory.

CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS, U.S. SUPREME COURT: Could I -- could I hear your answer?

(END AUDIO CLIP)

SCHNEIDER: And that was actually an exchange from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who was very vocal throughout this argument. And, Jim, what you heard in that exchange was really, A, the tension from Justice Sotomayor along with the other liberal justices, but then also the chief justice, John Roberts, trying to make sure that the attorney for Idaho could be heard. So there was a lot of tension inside the courtroom today. I'll tell you my read on it. Although we heard some skepticism from the chief justice and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, I really do think that, you know, Idaho could quite likely prevail here.

You know, EMTALA says nothing about abortion and it might just be vague enough that the conservative justices who often look very closely at the text of a statute and the intent of Congress, they might say that the statute was never really meant to prohibit states from enforcing abortion laws after the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

SCIUTTO: It's remarkable how much the law has moved on this issue since that --

SCHNEIDER: Yeah.

SCIUTTO: -- Dobbs decision.

Jessica Schneider, thanks so much.

We should be clear, it is not just Idaho. There are 15 states now with total or near-total abortion bans, this according to the Guttmacher Institute. The largest state on that list is Texas. They have a very similar law to Idaho's on the books and a similar legal challenges over EMTALA, and abortion care in that state.

Joining me now to discuss this is someone with first-hand knowledge and experience of exactly how abortion restrictions can affect complicated pregnancies.

Kaitlyn Kash is the Texas mom who was denied an abortion in her state -- spite being told her pregnancy was nonviable and she's a plaintiff in a case seeking clarification on Texas's abortion law.

Kaitlyn, thanks so much for joining us.

KAITLYN KASH, AFFECTED BY TEXAS ABORTION BAN: Thank you.

SCIUTTO: So first I wonder, can you share first more about your story and how the Texas law impacted your ability to get care? KASH: Yeah. You know, I'm here today because my first pregnancy was back in 2018 and it was fairly textbook. So when I started trying for a second baby, I just never in my wildest dreams, imagine that I did up here talking with you and really begging the American people to hear what's happening in Texas and to make sure that we reelect President Biden this fall.

My personal journey between my first and second child, I lost three very wanted pregnancies and I almost died after the birth of my daughter. I would not be here today without abortion, and the other reproductive health care that they gave me. Over the last two years, I've had to flee my home state to receive a surgical abortion. I've needed a medical abortion. I've used IVF and I needed a D&C procedure after the birth of my daughter to save my life from postpartum hemorrhage.

And all of these are basic health care that and then deserve that are currently under attack at things like the Supreme Court, at state legislatures, you know, and it just, it's -- it's a continued state of defeat to hear things like what's happening in the Supreme Court today knowing that my life doesn't matter.

SCIUTTO: Justice Kagan, she said to reports that an Idaho since this law took effect, they've had to airlift six pregnant women to neighboring states to receive emergency care. You will sometimes hear from folks saying, well, if it's illegal in the state fine, they could just travel to another state, but tell us what it was like to have to leave your home state to receive an abortion, which as you were saying, was lifesaving for you?

KASH: Yeah, it was definitely one of the most traumatic moments of my life when I received the diagnosis, my doctor couldn't even -- didn't even know if he could mention the word abortion and I basically was told that my pregnancy would be viable. I would make it to term, but when my child was born, their ribcage would be too small and they would suffocate upon taking their first breath.

And so to get that information and then be handed your medical records and be sent off into the world is dehumanizing to live in this country where I thought I had access to health care and I was literally sent home with my medical records and I had to call clinics out-of-state.

I had to arrange childcare for my older child. I had to book last- minute airfare I was very fortunate that I had the resources to do this, but when all I wanted to do was be laying on my bathroom floor crying, grieving the loss of this child that I desperately wanted.

[15:10:05]

I was navigating one of the worst experiences of my life and it's something that I'll never get over, but it's also something that I feel like I have to share with people so that they understand that what's at stake this fall, because if this ever happens to you, I would pray that we've overturned this horrible wrong because it was traumatic and, you know, I don't even know if there's a word for that experience. But I just -- I remember just wanting to die. But I had to keep going and I had to figure out where to go get the care that I needed.

SCIUTTO: Well, I can hear your voice. I'm sure our viewers can as well.

There's an issue at the core of this, and I wonder if you could help us understand. And that's the distinction between saving a mothers life, which is the exception allowed in Idaho, and preserving a mother's health which is what the Biden administration is arguing here, that that dividing line is not so clear and it sounds like it's very much on this side of the dividing line, right that health is not enough, in effect.

KASH: Yeah, my experience with all of this over the last few years and again, I've kind of faced the gauntlet of this, but doctors are so terrified of what they can and cant do that even if we wanted to pretend that there is an exception for the health of the mother, it's not really there. The doctors are so terrified that if another provider says, well, you could have done one other thing and then there'll be prosecuted.

And in Texas, 99 years in jail, you know? So it's not -- it's not even about these fine lines that we keep trying to divide. The care isn't happening after the birth of my daughter. I was having a postpartum hemorrhage and I needed the D&C procedure to clear the tissue from my uterus and it might procedure was delayed for over an hour and a half.

I went into shock. I started violently throwing up. I was coming in and out of consciousness and I lost over half of my blood volume because for some reason the procedure was delayed. And so, instead of spending the first night of my daughter's life holding her, I was in an ICU while she was three floors away being taken care of by a nurse.

SCIUTTO: And listen, another phenomenon, this is doctors scared to come anywhere close to the line drawn by the law.

Kaitlyn Kash, thanks so much for sharing what I know is a very difficult story.

KASH: Thank you so much for having me and I just really want to encourage people to listen to this and hopefully you think really hard about who they're voting for this November.

SCIUTTO: We will stay on top of it.

Another story were filing this afternoon. It is now been more than a week since pro-Palestinian protests broke out at Columbia University in New York. And protests now are spreading to other campuses around the country. These are scenes from San Antonio, Texas, where large demonstration is now underway. Students at several colleges have set up encampments protesting civilian casualties in Israel's war against Hamas.

There had been arrests, reports, as well of some antisemitic incidents. Some Jewish students have said they are now afraid to walk across campus during those demonstrations.

At Columbia, classes have now gone hybrid with a mix of in-person and remote options. Now, that hybrid model will extend to final exams, which began in just a few weeks. All this wide calls are getting stronger at least from some of the Republican Party and elsewhere for the university president to step down.

Noah Bernstein is a deputy news editor at "The Columbia Daily Spectator", the university's student newspaper. And he joins us now.

Noah, thanks so much for joining.

NOAH BERNSTEIN, DEPUTY NEWS EDITOR, COLUMBIA DAILY SPECTATOR: Thank you for having me, Jim.

SCIUTTO: Noah, I want to ask a question first to describe as best you can what the protestors are actually demonstrating for, right? There's been a tendency to caricature and simplify, right? They're anti- Israel, they're pro-Palestinian, they are antisemitic. It strikes me that many of the protesters at Columbia and elsewhere are protesting the progress of the war in Gaza, and the number of civilian casualties there.

What -- how would you describe the protests currently underway at Columbia?

BERNSTEIN: Right. So our reporting has shown that these demands have evolved, that there are various different segments of these protests. I think when appropriate dichotomy would be would be between inside and outside campus. The gates have closed for a very long time for at least a week now, restricting campus to really only Columbia affiliates. So within campus, within this encampment, their demands are largely for financial transparency, financial divestment, an academic boycott and now amnesty for some of the students who have been suspended as a result of their participation in unsanctioned protests.

[15:15:15]

SCIUTTO: Now, that's another key here, right? My understanding as to why the police, why the university we should know called into police when the camp was cleared was they were saved by having the camp there without permission, that was a clear breach of rules.

Is it -- based on your newspaper's reporting, is that, one, how it happened? And two, is that a fair reading of the university's rules?

BERNSTEIN: So the university's rules have been put under unique stress since October 7th. They have released a new rule regime recently, and there's a task force on antisemitism internal to the university that released a report in March supporting these new rules, which includes food certain space and time designations for authorized protests. And this task force supported that new change.

A common theme throughout our reporting has been both calls for enforcement within and without the university, both from congress. This task force and other pressures on Shafik, and the rest of the administration.

SCIUTTO: Noah, as you know, there's a long history of protests on university campuses going back to the 1960s and as you know, as well, there's been quite public discussion in recent years of a decline of freedom of expression on campuses, often from the right. Here you have a case where from the right you have criticism of the protests that are that are taking place on the campus there. Based on your experience of it, by the way, you work for a student newspaper, another example of free expression.

Do you think that these protests are fundamentally wrong? I mean, do you -- is the university getting the balance right here of, of course, protecting students safety, but also allowing students to who express themselves and to demonstrate?

BERNSTEIN: So, I think from our reporting, there have been myriad critiques of either too much suppression of speech and then also a lack of enforcement of rules, like I mentioned before. One element that has been important for us to understand the spectator has been evolving access that outside outlets can have to campus as they report on these from the inside and the outside.

Like we were talking about before, there's a difference between what's going on beyond Columbia's gates and what's going on in between the gates and on-campus. And these lines have blurred as of late.

And so, at various moments throughout the past week, where the "Columbia Spectator" and other student organizations who have been writing about this have been the only people allowed to access primary sources and witness on the ground what is happening at the encampment and the university's enforcement of rules.

SCIUTTO: Well, Noah, keep up the good work. Your newspaper's work is going to be a big part of how folks understand the events on campus there. Appreciate you coming on this afternoon.

BERNSTEIN: Absolutely. Thank you, Jim.

Still to come, President Biden has signed the $95 billion foreign aid bill, releasing critical military aid, not just to Ukraine, but also Israel and Taiwan. We're going to be live at the Pentagon with the latest details next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:23:27]

SCIUTTO: We've been monitoring campus protests around the country here as university students protest the conduct of the war in Gaza.

Our Nick Watt is at a protest underway now at the University of Southern California and the Los Angeles area.

Nick, we saw quite a big security response there. Tell us what you're seeing.

NICK WATT, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (via telephone): (AUDIO GAP) low, but it may only be a lull.

So what happened earlier is protesters got here very early in the morning, 4:30 perhaps, and put up tents on the Alumni Park, a small patch of grass inside the beautiful campus. They were told by the college, take it down. So they did.

Then later in the day, they felt the protesters felt that the college was, quote, nitpicking by making them take banners off trees, et cetera. So they put those tents back up. Security for the college, then moved in and it got ugly, very, very fast, Jim.

There was a lot of current things swearing, screaming, pushing and shoving between protesters and the campus safety officers. Then one protester was arrested and that is when things got even uglier. The protester was taken into a squad car. That squad car was then surrounded by protesters screaming, let him go, let him go.

I then just spoke to an LAPD detective, you said that the decision was then made to let that protest to go because frankly, it was a minimal charge and this wasn't worth the effort. So they've released that protester and that pretty quickly for a semblance of relative calm.

[15:25:03]

Now, the protesters are marching around the square, but we hear from the LAPD that they have now been asked by college officials to come onto the campus and to clear this patch of grass.

I've got to be honest, a lot of the protesters of already cleared it themselves. Tensions, as I say, chips dramatically as soon as that protester was released -- Jim.

SCIUTTO: Nick, what was the protester arrested for exactly? I'm trying to figure out what authorities are deeming to have crossed the line. The students have a right to demonstrate what are police reacting to specifically, but is it the presence of the camp?

WATT: Well, as I say, Jim, I think what really led to that arrest and what really kicked things off when they tried to clear the camp and then things pretty quickly got physical. There were protesters trying to stand in the way of a pickup truck and trying to stand in the way of security officers moving on, who were trying to take the tents away.

So there was a kind of undignified rolling between these people, pushing, shoving at one point. I saw one security operating officer, generally elderly man, surrounded by four or five protesters. The security officer was inching backwards, inching backwards, trying to keep these people at arms length who was pushing there were shoving.

So I can only imagine it was something along those lines that led to the arrest. It is pretty chaotic. It is pretty unclear to be honest.

SCIUTTO: And then the police, as you say, deciding the arrest wasn't worth it to some degree, and Nick Watt --

WATT: Yeah.

SCIUTTO: -- there on the campus of USC, we'll continue to monitor events there and it campuses elsewhere around the country.

We're going to take a short break now, when we come back, a check in on Ukraine funding from the U.S. finally going to the frontlines.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:30:16]

SCIUTTO: Welcome back.

The U.S. is now finally sending American artillery and air defense systems to Ukraine after months of deadlock in the U.S. Congress, moments after President Biden signed a $95 foreign aid. The Pentagon also announced a further $1 billion in aid for Ukraine.

Oren Liebermann, he joins us now from the Pentagon.

During this long wait and you and I talked about it so many times or in were learning now that the Biden administration managed to send more capable weapon systems to Ukraine even before this latest vote. What systems exactly and how have they been used?

OREN LIEBERMANN, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: That's right, Jim, for months, if not years, Ukraine -- and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have asked for long range ATACMS, that stands for Army Tactical Missile System. And as we learned today, the U.S. actually sent those last month and this took a bit of a process.

President Joe Biden gave the directive in February to figure out a way to send them. There were questions about military readiness and whether that was possible. Well, after essentially looking at the procurement and deciding that the U.S. would buy more of these the decision was made that they would be sent in an aid package worth 300 million that was announced last month finally, after the delivery process and the time it takes to move those long-range missiles, they arrived earlier this month, a long-range missile with a range of nearly 200 miles, a very capable system that Ukraine has long desired.

In addition, the U.S. announcing that $1 billion package you just mentioned, it's our understanding that there will be more of these long range ATACMS as well. The condition just like it was, is that Ukraine has to use those against Russian targets within occupied Ukraine. So, Ukraine can't use those to hit targets in Russia.

SCIUTTO: And its interesting that that highly debated weapon system long desired went even before this vote, just over the weekend.

Oren Liebermann, thanks for keeping us on top of it.

Well, speaking of news on Capitol Hill, Congress has now moved one step closer to banning TikTok here in the United States. The bill was part of the foreign aid package, which Biden signed into law today. Now the Chinese parent company of TikTok, ByteDance has nine months to sell the platform or it's going to disappear from its biggest market.

China's foreign ministry blasted the bill, calling it an abuse of state power. Notable coming from them.

Hadas Gold joins me now.

So, Hadas, talk us through the timeline here when the band could take effect and what exactly ByteDance would have to do to avoid that?

HADAS GOLD, CNN MEDIA CORRESPONDENT: So the clock is ticking from the moment President Biden signed this bill and TikTok's parent company, ByteDance is 270 days, which is nine months, to essentially spin off their U.S. business or face a ban. Now, there could be a 90-day, three-month extension baked into that, if it seems as though a sale is imminent, but that is the timeline that the company is facing right now.

Now, will that actually be the timeline that we all see whether there will be abandoned nine to 12 months? Most likely not. And that's because TikTok says they are going to be mounting eight legal challenge.

I think we have sound of the TikTok CEO, Shou Chew talking about this legal challenge. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SHOU CHEW, TIKTOK CEO: We are confident and we will keep fighting for your rights in the courts. The facts he and the Constitution are on our side, and we expect to prevail again.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GOLD: Now, the argument that TikTok is going to be making is solely -- a bit squarely on the First Amendment, saying that this bill violates not only the First Amendment rights of a copy, but also the first amendment rights of the 170 million or so TikTok users who are on this very popular app every day.

So this legal battle could take months, if not years, it could be a rather seminal First Amendment case. So it's going to be very interesting to watch this now. I and honor of Passover, I have four questions about the future of TikTok and this potential ban. The first one is will we see any sort of retaliation from the Chinese government towards American tech companies, towards a company like Apple?

What will happen with the TikTok algorithm? That's the key of this app. If this spin off sale takes place, most likely, it will stay in China.

Who will buy it? And also, where would the users go if it does get spun off or sold or even banned? Who will be the beneficiaries? Most likely will be Meta and Google, Jim.

SCIUTTO: Yeah, big questions there among your four and with big financial implications as well for all involved. Hadas Gold, thanks so much.

Please do stay with us. Lots more news on the other side of this short break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:38:06]

SCIUTTO: Pro-Palestinian demonstrations continue to sweep across college campuses in the U.S. today, galvanized by widespread arrests of student activists, particularly at Columbia University. It's not just the Ivy League.

Right now, a large-scale walkout is underway at the University of Texas at Austin. This demonstration was planned in solidarity with Columbia's protesters and the encampment there, according to a student journalist who spoke to CNN. State troopers have come there. Some of them on horseback.

Meanwhile, back at Columbia, around the clock negotiations continue between student representatives of that encampment and administrators, but tensions are still running high, could run even higher after this. The Republican speaker of the House, Mike Johnson will be on campus in the next few minutes, is expected to publicly call for the resignation of the university's president Minouche Shafik, alleging she has not adequately protected Jewish students and faculty there. We're going to bring those comments as they happen.

First, though, CNN's Omar Jimenez is on the scene just outside of Columbia University in New York.

Omar, I wonder what the reception will be there to Johnsons call, the Republican speaker coming to the campus there in New York City. Will he be welcomed?

OMAR JIMENEZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: That is an interesting question. Based on his message, he may be welcomed by some. He is coming here, of course, to stand in solidarity with Jewish students here who he says are not being protected enough by President Minouche Shafik. And that's part of why he's visiting here, but also related to call for the resignation of the university president.

Now to give you an idea of where I'm standing, we are -- we just actually got on campus and over there on the steps in front of the main library, that's where the speaker is going to be speaking in just a few minutes here as well.

And then if you pan over to the left, you can see actually where the encampment actually is. So he will have a full view of them. They will have a full view of him. This, of course, is the eighth day that this encampment led protests has been here at Columbia University, of course, as they mentioned many times, they are trying to push Columbia university not just to divest in companies they say benefit from Israel, but also to disclose those companies and to grant amnesty to students that were punished when the NYPD was called in last week to clear up this encampment.

[15:40:32]

And related to that, last night, midnight, this I guess, early this morning, the university president gave these folks a deadline of midnight to clear out the encampment or at least to get to an agreement throughout the encampment. Midnight came and went, nothing happened, few hours after that, a university spokesperson said they actually made good progress so much so that they push that deadline out to 48 hours.

But the proposed penalty before it was that they were going to have to find an alternative way to clear out this encampment. We don't know what that will be, but again, it was last week that they called an NYPD to clear this out, leading out, leading to a whole host of criticism from students and faculty that they brought someone from the outside to make this happen.

SCIUTTO: Omar, there have been allegations, as you know, of antisemitic activity. There at the same time, there have been Jewish students the leaders of Jewish organizations that have taken part in the encampment and said actually the vast majority of protesters here are peaceful.

I wonder what have you witnessed yourself on campus?

JIMENEZ: We have seen a wide range of things here. As far as what I've personally witnessed since being here, we only are allowed to come onto campus for eliminated few hours a day during the day time. So I have seen personally things be peaceful here from this encampment. That said, over the course of what's been reported in speaking to students and everybody else throughout are reporting here, there have been some tension, some Jewish students who feel not safe on campus based off of this, and then, of course, contrasting with what happens off-campus, as well, Jim.

SCIUTTO: Omar Jimenez, there on the Columbia University campus in Uptown, New York, thanks so much.

Let's take a look now at Brown University in providence, Rhode Island.

CNN's Isabel Rosales is there.

Tell us, Isabel, what you've been witnessing. Have they been largely peaceful protests and how have the authorities, how police responded?

ISABEL ROSALES, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hey, unlike what we've seen in some other campuses across the U.S., the school Brown says that here, they have had no reports of violence, harassment, or intimidation. What we've seen here is a rather peaceful demonstration over 20 tents set up right here in the main green lawn area. And all of these sounds incredibly just went up this morning around 6:00 in the -- 6:00 in the morning.

We've seen over 100 demonstrators gathered here at times singing, chanting, saying things like from Columbia to Brown, Gaza, we will not let you down. And what's interesting is that this is all happening right in front of this building right here. That is the administrative building. That's where school officials are. They can see from these windows this growing encampment here, those chants.

So what are these protestors want? We spoke with organizers and they tell me they have to major demands. One is for the school to divest. So when talking about the financials of portfolio, they want them to cut any ties with companies that are somehow connected to the Israeli government. And two, they want them to protect free speech on campus, specifically with 41 students that did a sit-in back in December and they are currently facing charges for that. They want those charges to be dropped.

But here in the last hour or so, they've gotten their first real taste of disciplinary action. And organizer forwarding to CNN and email that they got from the student conduct office saying that they are processing a case against them, and we know from the school that it can be anything from suspension up to an expulsion, depending on their level of involvement here.

The school Brown tells us that they have also checked IDs and in fact, we saw this in the last couple of hours, university police escorting a school employee with a machine, and we saw them scanning student ID after student ID after student ID. The school tells us that that's to verify that these are not outsiders, and for school safety as well.

Now, in terms of police action that you asked us about, the school tells us that an encampment is not grounds. It's not an arrestable offense, but say that if this does escalate too laws being broken or to the need of them dispersing this encampment, that police could be involved, brought on campus, and arrests may happen.

SCIUTTO: Isabel Rosales, let's hope it doesn't come to that. Thanks so much.

We do have this breaking news just in to CNN, this from Arizona, where state house lawmakers have voted to repeal the civil war era ban on abortion, which was revived by the state's Supreme Court earlier this month. That law bans all abortions at all stages of pregnancy, except when the mother's life is at risk.

This new law is expected to pass the Senate eventually come law, become law. A repeal means the state reverts back to a ban on most abortions after 15 weeks. We'll continue to follow that story as well.

And still to come this hour, the U.S. Supreme Court set to hear arguments in former President Donald Trump's immunity case tomorrow. We're going to discuss the stakes and how we got here coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:48:15]

SCIUTTO: Welcome back.

Former President Donald Trump's legal issues, arguably the country's as well, very much back in focus tomorrow. Trump himself will once again be sitting in a Manhattan courtroom for his criminal hush money trial. Here in Washington, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear his appeal for immunity, quite broad immunity in his federal trials.

The nine justices, three of whom were appointed by Trump, will take up the question of whether the former president should be exempt from prosecution for virtually anything related to the presidency.

That question has delayed special counsel Jack Smith's prosecution of Trump for his efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election. CNN senior political analyst and senior editor at The Atlantic, Ron Brownstein wrote about the role, the enormous role the Supreme Court has taken on in the U.S. Great piece, it's such an important point, a quote from you here.

You're right. Indeed, rulings by the GOP-appointed majority have delivered conservatives victories on issues that Republicans had virtually no chance to achieve through congressional or presidential actions, from retrenching federal voting rights laws, limiting federal and state gun regulation to ending the constitutional right to abortion.

I might add to that list, money in politics going back to Citizens United.

I just wonder given, I mean, we've certainly seen on abortion rights pushback from Democrats and voters really of all stripes. Given that these are issues that are deeply unpopular, right? The Supreme Court positions why not more pushback --

RON BROWNSTEIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Yeah. I mean --

SCIUTTO: -- from Democratic and others?

BROWNSTEIN: Traditionally, Republican voters have been more attuned to arguments about the Supreme Court, than Democratic voters. You know, we are -- we don't necessarily always see it because we're living in it, but we are in an era of political instability. I mean, we were in the -- neither party has been able to establish a durable advantage over the other really, since the 1980s, you know?

[15:50:05]

In this decade, there are only been six years of Republican unified -- in the century -- six years of Republican unified control of government for four years of Democratic unified control of government, a lot of stalemate in between.

SCIUTTO: Yeah.

BROWNSTEIN: That magnifies the influence of this six-member of majority on the Supreme Court because it is their year after year as a kind of a magnetic pole pulling public policy almost always toward the right.

SCIUTTO: And not incrementally, right? We're talking about the broadest gun-rights. We're talking about overturn of Roe v. Wade. We're talking about, you know, severe limitations on voting rights. And now even, you know, cases --

BROWNSTEIN: Ruling out gerry -- ruling out cases on gerrymandering.

SCIUTTO: Gerrymandering or drop -- pulling back the EPA's ability to regulate chemicals.

BROWNSTEIN: Yes.

SCIUTTO: I mean, these are -- these are --

BROWNSTEIN: Knocking down barriers between church and state. I mean, there's been -- you know, look, there are some exceptions, right? I mean, they did establish that the right this at least the 5-4 court established a nationwide right to same-sex marriage.

SCIUTTO: Whether that last.

BROWNSTEIN: Right. You know, there are exceptions, but generally speaking, this court has delivered, as you read, four Republicans victory is that they could not win through the legislative process. They were not going to repeal Roe through legislation. I mean, they tried all the way back going -- going all the way back to Ronald Reagan could not do it.

They were not going to repeal the preclearance process that gave the teeth to the Voting Rights Act. In fact, it had passed the extension, it passed I think almost unanimously through the Senate, only a few years before the Shelby County decision.

And so you have this court majority that is able to do things that they could not do through other means. And now you have this enormous, this momentous choice in front of them on immunity, where in some ways they've already given Trump an important tactical victory.

SCIUTTO: The delay.

BROWNSTEIN: The leisurely pace at which they've handled this has given him much of what he wants, which is to ensure that this does not go to trial before the election. The question of how far they go though in his direction, don't -- remember, when they granted cert, they said whether and to what degree the president shall enjoy immunity for acts --

SCIUTTO: So, maybe that they give him some give him or any president, because that's the point. It's not just about Trump. It's any president.

BROWNSTEIN: You know, in 1982, there's a 5-4 Supreme Court decision on civil liability after you left office, that said for actions within even the outer perimeter, that was the phrase of the president's official duties, he could not be sued in --

SCIUTTO: Civil court.

BROWNSTEIN: -- civil court, but personal could be.

If they draw any line like that -- first of all, there will then have to be trial on what part of the indictments there had to be judicial proceedings. And what part of the indictment fits on which side of the line? Which would ensure that, you know, a decision before November.

But all also, I've talked to a lot of legal experts who said, if they create any opening, it, if anything short of saying there is no immunity, Trump is going to view that as a license as to if he is reelected. I mean, we're mostly looking back in this case, Jim, were like saying, is it going to allow a trial to happen before November. The real profound implications may be looking forward.

If Trump gets a second term, and the court does not set a clear standard that you can be criminally liable. They embolden them in a way he's already talking about.

SCIUTTO: Remember the argument that his lawyers made the D.C. circuit case was that even if, you know, this outlandish example brought up, even if a president where to take orders, Seal Team Six, to take out his opponent, his lawyer said, well, unless he was tried and convicted in an impeachment proceeding essentially, that's fine. I mean, it's remarkable.

BROWNSTEIN: Right. That gives you an idea of how expansive a view they are going into this with. And that's why this -- I mean, that is the backdrop that Supreme Court has to be aware of, right? I mean, if there is a second Trump term, it will mean that voters -- enough voters and enough places look past whatever concerns they have about this level of presidential power.

His dominance of the Republican Party has been so clear that the impeachment conviction option of disciplining a president will be effectively, you know, neutered and so what would be left, it would be the fear of criminal prosecution. And if the court weakens that -- I mean, I think you will just turbo-charge all these instincts that Trump is already, as you say, giving a pretty clear indication about.

SCIUTTO: We -- as we discuss events tomorrow at the Supreme Court today on canvases, and these are live pictures here and were seeing them take place at Columbia, and now in solidarity with Columbia and other campuses around the country.

Of course, there's a long history of student protests, particularly on university campuses at this country. What's unique about what you're seeing play out here now?

BROWNSTEIN: Look, I think this is a very uncomfortable echo for Democrats of what they saw in the late 60s. It's not as vast in terms of, you know, when we look at polling like the Harvard IOP poll, the share of young in people and say that this is their top issue.

[15:55:01]

It's much smaller than it was in Vietnam. Americans are not being drafted. They're not going over to fight. But the intensity of emotion is real. There are a lot of things going on here. Some of it is anti- symmetric behavior. A lot of it is genuine discontent about what they're seeing.

SCIUTTO: Right.

BROWNSTEIN: Eighteen percent of Americans younger than 30, 18 said they approve of Biden's handling of Gaza -- of the Gaza war. He is underperforming among young voters for a lot of reasons. But to ignore the extent to which this is yet another problem that he has to overcome, I think is wishful thinking. He needs a resolution of this conflict. Netanyahu in many ways wants the opposite.

SCIUTTO: Yeah. I mean, that's been the roadblock for him, right. Is that he does not have an ally in Netanyahu on this.

BROWNSTEIN: He does not. I mean, Netanyahu's political incentives is to have it go on. I think as long as possible. So October 7th is this far in the rearview mirror as possible when he has to face voters, but I do think even -- despite the pretty lopsided vote on the Israeli aid, May 8th is a data circle on your calendar because that's where under a previous agreement with Democratic senators, the administration has to certify whether Israel is using U.S. weapons in accordance with international law, and whether it is cooperating with the distribution of humanitarian aid.

And that report I think could become the jumping off point for more -- more pressure.

SCIUTTO: So, you do think that's --

(CROSSTALK)

SCIUTTO: When I saw this vote go through with such bipartisan support, of course, it includes not just Ukraine aid and Taiwan aid, but Israeli aid. I wondered if that moment had passed for -- yeah.

BROWNSTEIN: Yeah. You know, I don't -- look, Democrats can't -- I mean, this is not this is a grueling issue for Democrats because obviously Jewish Americans who are mixed views about this are an important part of their coalition as well. But the extent to which this is metastasizing beyond kind of the communities of interest into a broader issue among young voters is a genuine threat to Biden on its own. Maybe it wouldn't tip voters away from him, but he's already starting with a lack of enthusiasm on young people.

Problem might not be they vote for Trump, who would be even further in this direction, but third parties are not voting at all, see more risks.

SCIUTTO: Trump, who, of course, brought about the Muslim ban, which by the way, it was also held up, upheld by this conservative Supreme Court.

Ron Brownstein, thanks so much.

BROWNSTEIN: Good to see you in person, Jim. SCIUTTO: And thanks so much to all of you for joining me today. I'm Jim Sciutto in Washington.

"QUEST MEANS BUSINESS" is up next.