Return to Transcripts main page
CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt
Trump Loses Supreme Court Battle To End Birthright Citizenship; Sources: Taylor Swift & Travis Kelce Expected To Get Married This Week At Madison Square Garden. Aired 4-5p ET
Aired June 30, 2026 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[16:00:02]
JILL TUCKER, FORMER PEACE CORPS VOLUNTEER IN CAPE VERDE: And, you know, it's a lot harder to go to war with friends than enemies. And, I think it's -- it's just -- it's that, right? It's just something that brings people together and had such an amazing effect on my life and, you know, I brings people together and had such an amazing effect on my life and -- and, you know, I think it's been around for a really long time.
BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: It's an amazing story. Jill Tucker, Ivan Silva, thank you both for joining us. Appreciate you.
"THE ARENA WITH KASIE HUNT" starts right now.
(MUSIC)
KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: Hi, everyone. I'm Kasie Hunt. Welcome to THE ARENA. It's great to have you with us on this Tuesday.
Right now, the birth of a new fight.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: We need to we need to address the issue as quickly and as efficiently as we can. Some are implying that we're suggesting that it may require a constitutional amendment. And as you know, that is a large undertaking. But clearly, birthright citizenship has been abused.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: President Trump now urging Republicans in Congress to act after a stinging loss at the Supreme Court. The justices today blocked the president from unilaterally ending birthright citizenship. The landmark 6-3 decision strikes down the president's 2025 Inauguration Day executive order.
Chief Justice John Roberts writing the majority opinion, calling citizenship, quote, "the right to have rights". He was joined by the court's three liberal justices, as well as two Trump appointees, Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.
It was one of three blockbuster decisions handed down today, which was the final day of the court's term. But the birthright ruling is both a political and personal setback for this president. Just how significant is this setback?
Let's just look at his own words and actions. He went to the Supreme Court in person to hear the arguments and presumably to look the justices in the eye, something a sitting president had never done. After he repeatedly pledged to end birthright citizenship as a candidate, he also took action immediately when he walked back into the Oval Office less than eight hours into his second term.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We're the only country in the world --
Birthright citizenship, it's over. Not going to happen.
Somebody comes over, walks across a line, has a baby. Now, we take care of the baby for the next 85 years.
We will end, finally, birthright citizenship. It's costing us so many billions of dollars.
My policy will choke off a major incentive for continued illegal immigration. We will restore our sovereignty starting on day one.
Birthright. That's a big one. It's ridiculous.
(END VIDEO CLIPS)
HUNT: So, with that presidential pledge now in limbo, conservatives are directing their ire at the judiciary
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's as bad as it gets from the Supreme Court.
MOLLIE HEMINGWAY, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: This decision that John Roberts authored is bad on the level of Dred Scott or Roe v. Wade. It's that bad.
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, DHS SECRETARY: I adamantly disagree with the spirit of the 14th Amendment on what the Supreme Court ruled here.
JOHNSON: I'm very disappointed in that outcome.
KAYLEIGH MCENANY, FOX NEWS HOST: The logical outcome of this opinion is a travesty.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is one quiver in the president's group of arrows removed from him.
STEVE BANNON, FORMER TRUMP AIDE: You got the ultimate conclusion of the Bush era was this Roberts. He gave it to you, baby. Right between the eyes. How do you, like, suck on that?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Wow. On a number of levels. Let's get off the sidelines, head into THE ARENA. My panel will be here, but we're going to get started with CNN chief legal affairs correspondent Paula Reid.
Paula, great to see you. You've been outside the court all day, of course. Walk us through the decision on birthright citizenship.
PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Look, Kasie, this was a big loss for President Trump. But it's not a big surprise. I mean, from the day that he signed this, administration officials have been telling me, while they were very confident a lot of other things would pass judicial review, they didn't think that this would ultimately pass, that he could do this maybe through Congress, but not through executive order.
And then we saw this in the oral argument across the political spectrum. The justices were skeptical of this. So, not a big surprise that he lost this case here. But the reason it's so significant is because this is something he has been promising for nearly a decade. And here they are really capping this effort that he has made. And he has promised to end this right.
But in this case, look, again, this is one of the first things that he did when he came back into office. He tried to ban birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants and for some temporary foreign visitors. But the court rejected this.
It's a really interesting lineup. You laid it out right there. It's Chief Justice John Roberts, along with the liberal justices. You also see Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Justice Kavanaugh.
[16:05:00]
I mean, this is a really interesting coalition, but they are reaffirming this principle that nearly all children born on U.S. soil are Americans, underscoring that this is a long cherished right.
So, this is the end of doing this through executive order, for sure. A rare check on his expansive use of executive power. But as you noted, it's not the end of the road. Justice Kavanaugh even suggested that if he took some similar language in this order over to Congress, got him to pass a law that might work. And that is exactly what he's trying to do. But that is, of course, a political longshot.
HUNT: Indeed.
All right. Paula Reid for us -- Paula, thank you as always.
My panel is here in THE ARENA. CNN's senior legal analyst, former federal prosecutor, Elie Honig; CNN political analyst and national political correspondent for "Axios", Alex Thompson; former DNC communications director Xochitl Hinojosa; and Republican strategist Shermichael Singleton. They're of course, both CNN political commentators.
Welcome to all of you. Thank you so much for being here.
Elie Honig, fairly remarkable to hear the Dred Scott case referenced in any positive way anywhere. But setting that aside, this is a really remarkable day on this court, not least because some of these justices now, we've seen the chief justice, John Roberts, kind of stake out interesting ground throughout the course of his time on the bench. But the backlash among conservatives to some of the people that President Trump appointed is pretty remarkable.
ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: So, first of all, bizarre to hear Dred Scott cited, because birthright citizenship was a response to Dred Scott, a correction of Dred Scott.
Look, I don't know where all this ire is coming from that we just saw from all these lawmakers. Maybe they're play-acting a little bit, but this was no shocker. I mean, it's rare that you have a legal issue where it's fairly clear on the face of the Constitution, where it's been made clear and reinforced in subsequent Supreme Court decisions, and where there's a law passed by Congress all to the same effect.
So, I'm not sure I fully buy that everyone is genuinely shocked and appalled and horrified. But what happened here, as Paula said, even some of many of Trump's own lawyers within the administration told her that they were doubtful this thing would win.
That said, look, the stakes here were enormous. There was legitimate uncertainty and fear out there with people who didn't know what this would mean for future generations, hundreds of thousands or millions of children. And now we know it's the same thing. We've understood since 1868, which is if you are born here, you are a citizen. It doesn't matter who your parents are.
HUNT: Alex, how do the politics of this cut?
ALEX THOMPSON, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: So, let's be clear. There is not going to be any change. Despite what Trump said before the midterms in Congress, there's also almost certainly not going to be a change before the next presidential election.
But this argument is not over politically. And that's because JD Vance, who is very close with Stephen Miller and said the White House, any GOP candidate is going to run on the same thing this next presidential election. And this is just the beginning of the debate.
I mean, I remember back in 2008, you had Republicans running on building a wall on the southern border, and they were met with guffaws. I actually think this is the beginning of a debate over this and even potentially a debate over constitutional amendments or legislation.
XOCHITL HINOJOSA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Can I just say something on that? Because I do think that J.D. Vance will run on this. And I think that is what will be required in a Republican primary. But birthright citizenship, it polls in the upper 60s. And I think that if you were asking a voter in a battleground state, I think that they will tell you, listen, Trump delivered on closing the border. Trump delivered on making sure that he was doing everything he can to take to keep the bad guys out.
But I don't think that they agree with, for example, overturning birthright citizenship or Congress doing something about that. And I don't think they also agree with Donald Trump sort of taking away legal status of almost a million people through TPS. And so, I think this will be an interesting place that whether it be J.D. Vance or Marco Rubio, they're going to be playing to their base in a Republican primary.
But I think what will be interesting is what happens in a general election. People signed up for taking out violent criminals. They didn't necessarily sign up for this. And that, I think, is going to be a big, big question politically.
HUNT: Let's watch what Stephen Miller had to say in response to this. He, of course, is really the chief architect of any immigration policy. And I'm sorry, this was a tweet, not a soundbite.
He wrote this, quote, "One of the most destructive and outrageous decisions in the long history of the Supreme Court. American citizenship is not the birthright of the world. It belongs only and solely to Americans. No provision of the Constitution can be read to require our national self-obliteration."
Shermichael, what is your take on the way he frames this and the way this conversation we're having about where we go next?
SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I don't typically agree with Stephen Miller on much, but I think he's correct here. And Elie and I have debated this several times on air. Obviously, I respect his legal acumen, but philosophically, I fundamentally disagree with the court on this.
To me, I go back to "subject to the jurisdiction of" going back to the original intent of the 1866 Civil Rights Act for the 14th Amendment being passed. What was it to address? What was it to codify? It was freed slaves who did not have citizenship. It wasn't freed slaves and any and everybody else across the globe.
Of the 27 EU countries, none of them, none of the civilized Western countries allow or permit unconditional immigration. None of the Western countries allow it, with the exception of the United States and Canada.
Now, that is not to say that we should not have an immigration policy where we welcome people. I think we absolutely should. It's made our country very strong. But does it mean we should allow anyone to just come into the country, merely have a child and that child be granted citizenship. I would say not.
And in fact, Democrats actually believe the same thing. You go back to 1993 when Harry Reid introduced the Immigration Stabilization Act. His argument at the time was, you're allowing people to take advantage of our country. Senator Dianne Feinstein agreed at the time. Several other Democrats agreed at the time. So once upon a time, there was bipartisan support that this is a
problem that should be addressed by Congress. Now, I would agree that the executive branch should not have carte blanche authority to just do whatever he or she will. At some point, we'll have a woman president. I would agree there. There should be limitations.
But Congress needs to act on this by passing an amendment. Again, I disagree with the interpretation by the court.
HUNT: Certainly, there are differences in our world. Across the world, the way that travel has made it so much easier, technology has made it so much easier to cross borders, to get places. But I do think it's worth remembering that whether or not you could come to America and become an American is one of the things that historically has differentiated America from many other countries around the globe.
And it used to be that conservatives would celebrate this. This was Ronald Reagan talking about what is part of what came to be known as American exceptionalism, why it, why it is different to be an American and what that means. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RONALD REAGAN, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: Since this is the last speech that I will give as president, I think it's fitting to leave one final thought, an observation about a country which I love. It was stated best in a letter I received not long ago. A man wrote me and said, you can go to live in France, but you cannot become a Frenchman. You can go to live in Germany or Turkey or Japan, but you cannot become a German, a Turk, or Japanese. But anyone from any corner of the earth can come to live in America and become an American.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Elie?
HONIG: I've never seen that one before. There is a fair policy debate to be had. If we were starting from scratch and they told the five of us, you have to write a new Constitution. There's a good debate to be had about should we have birthright citizenship or not?
Today's ruling doesn't get into, or it shouldn't. I mean, the proper legal ruling doesn't get into good or bad idea. The end result is it's in the Constitution.
And that's sort of the beauty of it. It insulates it from the political whims of the moment. There have been times Democrats, as you said, Sherm, have wanted things like this. There have been times it's hot with Republicans, but when it's in the Constitution, it rises above all of that.
Now to the phrase that we discussed, the operative phrase here is "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", right? The argument that Trump people made just was an outright loser, which is if your parents are here illegally or temporarily, hence they're subject to some other country's jurisdiction and not the U.S. jurisdiction. That's ridiculous, because if you're here illegally or temporarily, you can still be arrested by the U.S. government. You can still be imprisoned, fined, subpoenaed, questioned, all the things the government can do. That's why this was ultimately a losing argument.
And finally, to the point, yes, it was adopted in 1868, ratified 1868, in an attempt to protect the children of freed Black slaves.
And I know the argument is, well, that's all it was intended to do, if that's all it was intended to do, they could have written it that way. There are other points in the Constitution where it says this applies to slavery. This was written, the 14th Amendment, much more broadly. And so, the logical conclusion is hence it was intended to be all encompassing moving forward.
SINGLETON: But would the logical conclusion be that anyone can merely come, regardless of citizenship status, and have a child and that child be granted citizenship? I think there's a very, very loose, and I would argue, reckless interpretation. Now, again, that's not to say that one should be against welcoming immigrants. I'm certainly not in support of that. I think we absolutely should.
But I think that's something that should be handled by the legislative branch and not interpreted by the Constitution. Again, going to the 14th Amendment, where I go back to what was the intent, was the intent for anyone and everyone, or was the intent applicable to a very specific group of people that had significant damages against them by our own country? And I think that's a very different thing.
HINOJOSA: But I think that if you're thinking about this argument about birthright citizenship and where it stems from, and the reason why it will be a big issue in the Republican primary is because there is generally an anti-immigrant sentiment coming from the Republican Party. And it's not only anti-immigrant, and it's very sad. It is also like anti-diversity. It's anti-DEI.
Anyone -- if you're color -- the color of your skin or if your immigration status, a lot of people who are here legally again are going to be deported because -- and they followed the rules and the government did not uphold their end of the bargain.
[16:15:11]
It is a very scary time in America right now when we are not welcoming immigrants, when we are -- we do not have a system or a government who understands the importance of diversity or legal status or any of those things. And we're heading towards a very dangerous place when it comes to that right now, when the Republican Party has showed us that they are anti-immigrant.
THOMPSON: To both of your points, I think it's very clear, based on that Ronald Reagan clip that you showed before, is that this is no -- when it comes to immigration, this is no longer Ronald Reagan's party. It's also no longer George W. Bush's party.
When it comes to immigration, this is a very, very different Republican Party going forward. And all signs point to it's going to become more hawkish on immigration, not less.
HUNT: All right. Coming up next here, the Supreme Court also today opened another floodgate for money in politics. California Democratic Senator Alex Padilla is here live in THE ARENA.
Plus, new reaction after the high court weighs in on an issue that's divided Americans.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHRIS MOSIER, TRANSGENDER ATHLETE: I'm concerned that every case, every conversation, every, quote/unquote, "debate" that folks are having about trans athletes is going to lead to further discrimination against our community, because we've seen that be the case. We know that these cases are not actually about trans people in sports. This is about power and this is about control.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:21:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CECILLIA WANG, ACLU LAWYER: Ask any American what our citizenship rule is, and they will tell you. If you're born here, you're a citizen just like everyone else. And that -- that couldn't be more fundamental to who we are as a nation. If they want to try and overturn it by constitutional amendment, good luck to them.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: That was Cecillia Wang, one of the lawyers who argued the birthright citizenship case before the Supreme Court. She's celebrating the court's 6-3 decision to uphold birthright citizenship.
President Trump is now urging Republicans in Congress to find a way to end it through legislation. But that would require amending the Constitution.
Joining me now is Democratic senator from California, Alex Padilla. He sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Senator, thank you so much for spending some time with us today. It's great to see you.
SEN. ALEX PADILLA (D-CA): Thank you for having me. Big day.
HUNT: Walk me through your reaction to this ruling because there are so many Americans out there for whom this was so much more than a piece of paper. It had real meaning. And your family is among them.
PADILLA: Right. Look, as big as this issue is not just from a policy standpoint and a political standpoint, like so much before the Supreme Court and coming out of Donald Trump's mouth, it's God. I'm praying for the best, but I'm preparing for the worst.
Part of my personal experience being a proud son of immigrants, my parents came from Mexico in the 1960s when I was born. They were green card holders. They had become citizens yet. And so, explaining to my own kids, what would it mean if the Supreme Court rules this way versus that way? They're asking me this question and knowing, hey, that could apply to you.
And by extension, apply to them. So where, where would this leave us? If my citizenship is taken away? Because Donald Trump would love to do that. If the Supreme Court would have sided with him, then by extension, what does that mean for my kids? Are we packing up and leaving? Are we stateless family?
And it's not just me because it happened to be a senator thinking this and feeling this. Millions of families across the country having similar thoughts, having very similar conversations.
So, thank God the Supreme Court reaffirmed what's been clear and the law of the land for more than a century and plainly written into the Constitution.
HUNT: Given what they set out today, do you feel like the debate over this is over? Is it signed, sealed, delivered?
PADILLA: As much as I wish it was. I mean, I think legally that should be the case. But we know Trump, we know MAGA, they're going to keep coming. They're going to keep attacking. They're going to keep trying. You know, he already put the word out. We're going to go to Congress and Republicans in Congress already have a bill that's been introduced.
There is a process if they want to amend the Constitution. It's a very, very high bar, and I'll be there to try to nip this in the bud in the Senate before he even has a chance to get out of Congress and go to the states.
HUNT: What -- do you think that there are any situations where birthright citizenship is abused? Are there any places or areas where there should be adjustments to the law?
PADILLA: Yeah. Look, I've heard the arguments that Donald Trump has made. I mean, the one unique, one of the birth tourism thing, you know, very, very small numbers.
But let's take a look at that. Let's have that conversation, but that's not what Donald Trump tried to do. It was a blanket. We're going to take birthright citizenship away. And you can't ignore all the other attempts that Donald Trump and his administration have made to try to control who gets to be an American, who gets to call themselves an American, who gets to be part of our society, versus him dictating, you get to stay. You have to go.
Cruel deportations, we've seen that. The end of asylum, except for Afrikaners, we've seen that. You know, there's restricting who gets to vote in our elections, even amongst United States citizens. So, I don't believe the battle is over by any means.
HUNT: The Latino community and I fully understand that encompasses a lot of different people from a lot of different backgrounds, in a lot of different places across the country.
[16:25:02]
But if you look at exit polling data from our recent elections, President Trump made a lot of inroads with Latinos in a lot of different places, in a lot of different ways. Often, they would tell us that was about the economy. What are you hearing from people in your community who perhaps supported the president before about where they stand now, based on what they've experienced over the beginning of this term?
PADILLA: Yeah. Well, I think a couple of things. First of all, appreciate you recognizing the Latino community is very diverse, right? I think there's some quarters in politics that will assume every Latino is an immigrant, or that all immigrants are Latino, when that's anything but the case.
The immigrant community is far more diverse than just Latinos. And Latinos, you have immigrants, children of immigrants, and people who have been here for generations in their family. Trump said in the last election, look, I'll concede that there are some Latinos who previously voted Democratic that voted for Trump or voted Republican.
This time, there's probably an equal, if not a greater, number of Latinos who previously voted Democratic that just sit it out, you know, for a number of reasons. Immigration was one of the topics of conversation. But by far, the most impactful, consequential one was economic anxiety, economic uncertainty.
And so, what people are seeing today are two things. One, Trump said he was going to tackle immigration, and people think, this is what I signed up for. You've seen the cruel, violent detentions and arrests across the country, and he certainly hasn't tackled the economy. Prices are up. Gas prices, health care costs, housing costs, energy costs, you name it.
HUNT: When you -- when you think about what the future looks like for the Democratic Party. Just this week we heard Zohran Mamdani, the mayor of New York, say that a socialist could win any election anywhere, any office of any height here in the United States.
There are a number of Central and South American countries that have had experience with socialist leaders, and a lot of people who came from those countries here to the United States have said that they had a bad experience with that.
Do you think that socialism is a winning brand for Democrats across the country?
PADILLA: Yeah, I think first and foremost, I go back to the days of Tip O'Neill, all politics are local, right? So maybe in the city of New York or parts of New York, that can resonate more. New York is different than California, different than Indiana, different than Texas, different than -- and so, I think we're fundamentally for small D democracy, I'm looking for candidates and office holders, political parties and campaigns to really do the work of meeting people where they are and having the conversations about what's on their mind, what they want to see from their representatives, and tackling the issue.
Let's debate the ideas on how to bring down the cost of health care and restore access to health care, right? Economic opportunity, the quality of schools, right? That on a bigger picture, I -- it's still unbelievable to me. You have a political party, the Republicans under Trump, who want to eliminate the Department of Education.
Back to immigration, my parents came to the United States hoping that to start a family and for their kids to have a better life, and that better life starts with getting a good education, we should be investing more in education, not less.
You have contrast after contrast like that to take into -- onto the campaign trail and into the midterm elections.
HUNT: But maybe socialism not the right word?
PADILLA: Again, let that be discussed and debated between candidates and voters.
HUNT: Fair enough.
I want to ask you about this. This is new reporting just in to CNN. So, we're learning here that just hours after the Supreme Court rejected the president's effort to limit birthright citizenship through that executive order, the Justice Department has now sent a letter to all U.S. attorneys telling them to prioritize the investigation and prosecution of birth tourism schemes.
Do you think this is the right priority for our Justice Department?
PADILLA: The -- I mean, there's so much that I disagree with Trump's weaponized Justice Department, right? They want to shift resources over towards immigration enforcement more broadly. And if only they were focusing on the dangerous, violent criminals that they talk so much about, the true worst of the worst.
But we know that that's not the case, by their own admission, by DHS' own numbers. And what's left unattended to -- the white collar crime, the child sexual trafficking task forces on and on and around the country. We have more important priorities.
HUNT: Before I let you go, I also wanted to get you to weigh in on one other decision the court made, which was to allow more campaign money to flow from the parties, from the Republican National Committee, the Democratic National Committee. The RNC has an enormous cash advantage over the DNC right now. If you look at it, the RNC is $125 million cash on hand.
The Democrats are, you know, it's kind of funny, actually. We've got it. We've got it in red because it's Republican. But if you're an accountant, this should be flipped around, right? The Democrats are in the red by $3.4 million.
[16:30:02]
What's the impact of this? And do you have faith in the leadership in Ken Martin at the DNC right now?
PADILLA: Yeah. Well, I think what we have to do is recognizing that resource advantage that Republicans have that, you know, they're going to use not just to try to promote Republicans, but try to bash Democrats. And it's their only hope.
Under Trump, the track record has been so bad, not just unpopular, but so damaging to working families across the country. Their only hope is to follow Trump's lead in trying to interfere with the November elections, right? Their obsession with eliminating vote by mail and making it harder to register to vote.
And of course, they're going to pummel the airwaves and mailboxes with negative campaigning. That's their only hope. Given all that, I still think we're in good shape for November.
HUNT: All right, Senator Alex Padilla, thank you so much for taking some time with us. I hope you'll come back in THE ARENA soon.
PADILLA: Look forward to.
HUNT: Appreciate it.
All right. Coming up next here in THE ARENA, the issue on gender, sports and equality that found its way to the nation's highest court, plus, a Republican congressman returns to Capitol Hill and explains why he was mysteriously absent for four months.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:35:27]
HUNT: Today, the Supreme Court ruled along ideological lines that states may bar transgender students from playing on girls' sports teams. It's just the latest legal defeat for the trans community.
Justice Kavanaugh wrote the majority opinion in which he says this, quote, "Separate sports teams for biological males and biological females are reasonable given the inherent physical differences between the sexes, allowing only biological females to play on women's and girls' teams can reduce the risk of physical injury and ensure fair competition. Even in recent years, 27 states, the NCAA, the U.S., OPC and the IOC have all drawn the same line."
He ended the ruling by saying that transgender athletes who want to compete deserved respect.
So just how many trans athletes are there? In December 2024. We got the latest statistics on college trans athletes when the NCAA president, Charlie Baker, was on Capitol Hill.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. DICK DURBIN (D-IL): How many athletes are there in the United States and NCAA schools?
CHARLIE BAKER, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION: Five hundred and ten thousand.
DURBIN: How many transgender athletes are you aware of?
BAKER: Less than 10.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: All right. Christine Brennan joins our panel now.
And, Christine, this, of course, has become an enormous political issue. It was a -- of course, famously part of trans issues writ large, part of some of the sharpest political arguments in the most recent presidential campaign. What does this ruling mean in real life, for the athletes that are directly affected and also for the sporting community writ large?
CHRISTINE BRENNAN, CNN SPORTS ANALYST: As you know, Kasie, as and as the opinion said, this has been a trend. This has been from the very top of sports, the Olympic world, the NCAA, U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee, the LPGA, everywhere you look over the last couple of years in sports, internationally and nationally, this is the decision that we keep seeing made.
But as you're alluding to, this particular decision is about the states. And there are 27 that right now ban transgender women from competing in women's sports. In other words, if you've gone through male puberty, you can then not compete in the women's sports category. That means, of course, that 23 have not.
And what we're going to be now looking at is not elite sport, not the Olympics, not the NCAA, not scholarship athletes, not Olympic gold medalists. We're going to be watching over the next year or so. The states high schools, AAU tournaments, all kinds of things. And those other states of what is going to be allowed and what isn't going to be allowed.
And as much as there, this has become as you, as you said, the polarization of our country has become such a part of our politics as well. It's also about the kid you see in the kitchen every morning, and you wave to you as they go off and put their -- have their sports bag over their shoulder. And what do we want for our children and the inclusion issue? And obviously, we've seen a lot of very, very hateful rhetoric, to tone that down and to find a way to include all kids, especially at the beginning. Five, six, seven, when they can get that opportunity to learn those life lessons through sports.
We want every child to have that opportunity, and that will be the challenge now moving forward with this decision.
HUNT: Alex Thompson, this, of course, is going to ripple into the campaigns to come. I want to play what Gavin Newsom had to say in May of 2025. He was actually talking to Charlie Kirk when he said this, but take a look at what he said then.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHARLIE KIRK, HOST: Would you say no men in female sports?
GOV. GAVIN NEWSOM (D), CALIFORNIA: Well, I think it's an issue of fairness. I completely agree with you on that. It is an issue of fairness. The way that people talk down to vulnerable communities is an issue that I have a hard time with as well. So, both things I can hold in my hand.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: How do you think Democrats are going to grapple with this?
THOMPSON: Well, I'd say first of all, more voters have an opinion on this issue than have ever been affected by this issue, which you noted from -- from the statistics. But I will say Democrats are in complete retreat on this issue. You have seen everyone from people -- progressives like Adam Schiff to moderates like Slotkin to Governor Newsom, basically say some version of it's a version of fairness, or we need to leave it to localities, or we need to leave it to states.
There are very few Democrats that are willing to say what they were willing to say six years ago, which was to advocate for trans women to play in women's sports.
HUNT: How does it interact with the law?
HONIG: So the key word and Christine Brennan said, this is may -- not must at this point, which is the states may now choose to outlaw this. The question is, will that become a must? And there will be a legal effort. There are some already underway to turn it into a must, because the ruling today was an interesting ruling. It was nine zero with all the liberals joining that it is okay under Title IX to do this, to ban transgender athletes from women's sports.
So, if it's okay to ban them under Title IX, does it then follow that they must be banned under Title IX? So, I promise you this issue will take months or years to make its way up. But the next step is going to be to argue that you cannot allow transgender athletes to play in women's sports.
HUNT: And where does a case like that come from? Does it come from someone in a state that doesn't ban them? Or --
HONIG: Yeah, it'll -- it'll come from -- it could arise up through any number of states, through the district court. You could have multiple different rulings, sometimes contradictory rulings in different districts and then different circuits. That's what the Supreme Court's ultimately there for, to give us one unified final decision for the whole country.
HUNT: Yeah. Xochitl? HINOJOSA: I think Democrats right now will largely are not talking about it. What I -- what Democrats see in their polling, especially in tough districts, is that if you're talking to a voter, the top five issues, boys in girls' sports is not one of them. It's the economy. It is things like health care, its cost of living. It's all of these issues.
And so, what Democrats see this as, yes, Republicans will try to run on it. They will run ads. We're seeing it in my home state of Texas, where my sister is running for governor.
Like there are -- they are trying to bring this up as an issue because they don't want to talk about the economy. They don't want to talk about issues that they're polling so poorly on right now.
And so, Democrats see this as much of a distraction. As a mom, what concerns me is that bullying in schools is already a thing. Why are we targeting kids? And I just -- and I think that is just from a human perspective, is this is going to increase bullying of children and they're right.
You know, I think what she was just saying is right. This is we're not talking about -- we're talking about high school kids. We're talking about kids in their most critical years as they are growing.
We want to have a conversation about sports. Fine. But like, let's leave our children out of it.
SINGLETON: Look, this is a 90-10 issue and I don't think you can divorce the political realities of the economy from the crossover of culture. And I think Republicans have recognized that to great effect. When you look at polling surveys, focus groups, et cetera..
Now, I agree with Christine in terms of the sensitivities and how you discuss this. I can't imagine what parents of trans kids have to navigate with, helping them explore and figure out the world. I just can't imagine that. And I want to acknowledge that.
But there is a fundamental question of fairness that the governor of California even acknowledged. And I think at some point, we have to figure this out in a way that doesn't disenfranchise the rights of trans kids. I certainly wouldn't want to be discriminatory in nature against anyone.
But while maintaining the fairness of girls on girls teams and vice versa.
HINOJOSA: But this doesn't impact very many -- I mean, there are state laws. This isn't -- you just heard, it doesn't impact very many people. There are about 15 kids that they knew that they're trans were actually impacted.
We're talking about an issue that is more of a culture war. It's a scare tactic in many communities. And when you actually go into these states there -- it's not widely -- it's not widely a thing to where there are boys participating in girls' sports. They have opinions, but it's not a thing.
THOMPSON: But to Xochitl's point, Republicans come out of the 2024 election believing that they can just run on this issue, and they will automatically win. Now, what happened last year in gubernatorial races, both in Virginia and in New Jersey, Republicans ran on this issue hugely. They spent tens of millions of dollars, mostly on this issue, and they lost in a huge way. They basically lost both races by double digits.
SINGLETON: But again, it goes back to my point, Alex, you can't divorce the tangible realities of what people are facing from the cultural ones. I think you can focus on two things at once and make that argument and appeal to the American people. Again, looking at the polling data on where they stand on that issue.
HUNT: Well, and, Christine Brennan, I mean, it was, of course, a point that Kavanaugh went out of his way to make in this decision when he said, quote, "Those student athletes want to play sports, their desire to compete warrants respect. No student athlete on either side of the issue, whether a biological female or transgender, deserves to be ostracized or vilified." An important point.
BRENNAN: Absolutely. And I think where this is headed, we had a little glimpse of this a couple of years ago when the world aquatics, the World Swimming Federation had an open category. So, they had a meet and they had women's, they had men's. And they then they had an open category.
Now, unfortunately, no one showed up for the open category. And I'm not laughing at it. I was just laughing at that particular moment. Clearly that was unusual, but I think we're going to see the opportunity.
[16:45:01]
It may be in track and field. Some of these individual sports in particular, where there could be that third category, open category, or where transgender women may end up is in the boys or men's category. I know that would send, you know, obviously, those who care very much on that side of the issue, clearly that would that would anger them.
But there's going to be a solution here. And the international sports community may well be the -- leading the way to show us where this is headed, and open category of some sorts may well be the answer.
HUNT: All right. Christine Brennan. Elie Honig, thank you both very much for being with us today. I really appreciate it.
Ahead here in THE ARENA, breaking news. Welcome to New York. CNN has confirmed the details on the upcoming Taylor Swift-Travis Kelce wedding. The where, the when -- I gave it away a little bit. All the details coming up next.
It's a love story. Guys, you've got to love it.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:50:19]
HUNT: Breaking news. It's a love story. Taylor Swift said yes to Madison Square Garden, where she will wed her lover, Travis Kelce, in the cruel summer heat.
But it's not going to be so high school. It's going to go all night long. We, of course, know they had to file for permits amid other champagne problems, but hey, it's just the life of a showgirl.
Are you ready for it? I know I am, and I am joined now by CNN's Gloria Pazmino, as well as our entertainment reporter, Lisa France.
Gloria, this is reporting that you are breaking. What have you learned?
GLORIA PAZMINO, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Thank you so much, Kasie.
You know, I'm not going to be able to keep up the references that you just so masterfully delivered there, but I can tell you what we know. We have two sources that are familiar with the plans confirming to us that Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce's wedding will be taking place at Madison Square Garden on Friday at the world's most famous arena.
Not only is this happening Friday, but as you know, it is also Fourth of July weekend. And this will all be unfolding during a massive heat wave that is starting here in New York City. So, a very significant event during a significant time with very high temperatures.
Here's what else we know. We know there will be another event that is being described to us as a rehearsal that's taking place on Thursday.
And of course, there is no good wedding without a proper cocktail hour. We have been told that a cocktail hour is scheduled for Friday, in the late afternoon. At least a thousand people are expected to attend Friday, and only 100 will attend to that Thursday event that is being described to us as a rehearsal.
Again, not only is this America's royal wedding, but it is happening inside an iconic location here in New York City, a very busy intersection in New York during a very busy, likely historic weekend because of the July 4th celebrations and during very hot temperatures.
Although I think it's going to be just fine climate-wise inside of MSG.
HUNT: Well, we'll have to assume there won't be paper rings.
Lisa, this is really just an event, right? A cultural event in addition to, of course, being her wedding. It's an interesting choice of venue. There's been a lot of, you know, conversation about whether it's the most romantic, but certainly it allows her a degree of the control that she is looking for.
No drones, no control over the photography, et cetera. What are you expecting?
LISA RESPERS FRANCE, CNN SENIOR ENTERTAINMENT REPORTER: Well, Kasie, we know all too well that Taylor Swift has to do everything big, and I think she has been in love with New York for years. She's maintained a home there. And I think what we're expecting is that crowds are going to try to get as close as possible as they can, just to get a glimpse.
Just imagine that you're out there with your cell phone, and you get to see Taylor Swift arriving for either, you know, her rehearsal or for the wedding. So, I think that the NYPD is going to have, you know, like some serious work on their hands trying to keep the crowds back.
The Swifties alone are going to swarm, Kasie, we know that this --
HUNT: They're going to be fearless, Lisa.
FRANCE: Absolutely. They are going to be -- you know what? I can't match your game. Like she said, I cannot match your game lyric for --
HUNT: You're doing great though.
FRANCE: I'm trying.
(LAUGHTER)
HUNT: I mean, this really is, Lisa. You know, I mean, there are a few celebrities that are as ubiquitous in our culture as Taylor Swift has really become in the fragmented media landscape in which we live. And when you combine that with the star power that Travis Kelce brings to the table, as somebody who plays in Super Bowls, it's really something else.
FRANCE: Yes. I mean, we got away from the royals 250 years ago, but celebrities are our royals, right? Right. Celebrities are our royals.
And when you have the melding of two cultures like this, the sports culture and then the music culture, two things that Americans absolutely adore. This is our royal wedding. And it is -- it is time for us to shine.
She is Miss Americana. You know, Taylor Swift is beloved. Travis Kelce, I mean, beloved as well in different ways. And so, seeing the two of them come together, and I mean, if you listen to any of Taylor's lyrics, her whole entire career, this is the moment that she has been waiting for.
And so, people are just so positively excited that she has found her person. And I mean, I don't have an invitation, but as far as I'm concerned, this is my wedding too. I feel like I'm going to be a guest because you know that she's going to share something, because one of the reasons why Taylor Swift is such a huge star is she always remembers her fans.
[16:55:00]
And so, I think after the wedding, I think the fans are going to get a little sneak peek of some of her happiness. That's what I predict.
HUNT: And you know, it's been really fun, too, to see the way that Travis has supported her as such a strong female performer. He's gotten up on stage with her. He's been such a good sport about it.
I mean, listen, it's actually romantic.
Gloria Pazmino, Lisa France, thank you both very much. Really appreciate it.
All right. On that note, we'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HUNT: All right, thanks very much to my panel.
Thanks to all of you at home for watching as well.
But of course, do not go anywhere. Jake Tapper is standing by for "THE LEAD".
Jake, I'm having an awful lot of fun covering the breaking news of Taylor and Travis's wedding. Are you ready for it?
