Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Dispute Over North Carolina's Congressional Map, Supreme Court Rules Against GOP Lawmakers; Theory That Would Have Given State Legislatures Unchecked Authority Over Federal Elections Rejected by Supreme Court; Prigozhin Arrived in Belarus, According to Lukashenko; Putin Commends Military for Ending "Civil War". Aired 10:30-11a ET

Aired June 27, 2023 - 10:30   ET

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

[10:30:00]

LAURA COATES, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR, AND SIRIUSXM HOST, "THE LAURA COATES SHOW": Normally, when you have a decisive ruling like this, obviously, it's not unanimous. It's not even, say eight to one, but it suggests that there are sufficient numbers of justices who will not likely have the appetite to revisit this issue in the near future. So, that means the Supreme Court's ruling now will create a kind of precedent where other states will know they must conform accordingly.

And just to bring the point home about why this is impactful, this all deals with what's called, the election's clause of constitution. Let me read for you what it says, the times, places, and manners of holding elections for senators, representatives shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof. Based on that language, this argument was to suggest that that meant, courts, governors, election administrators. You couldn't have independent commissions. They could have no part whatsoever in deciding what should take place and what kind of checks and balances ought to be provided.

And so, this absolutely preserves the status quo of saying, look, we are a democracy. We believe in checks and balances, and no can essentially be an island unto themselves without being having scrutiny or some form of judgment rendered, or an opportunity for the electorate to appeal to a different branch for some kind of change.

And so, this is a decisive win in the sense that the Supreme Court has not told use why they wanted to take the case, but now we know with the six to three decision, they are very unlikely to revisit this yet again and have a different composition of opinion.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN NEWS CENTRAL CO-ANCHOR: You take the case to remove the ambiguity.

SARA SIDNER, CNN NEWS CENTRAL CO-ANCHOR: Right.

BERMAN: By taking the case and not just mooting it, which is what Clarence Thomas wanted to do, the Supreme Court puts its stamp on it and says, OK. As you said, Kate, these are guardrails. This is where we're going. I continue to be fascinated by the coalition here where you have the three so-called liberal justices, but you have Justice Kavanaugh, Coney Barrett, and the chief justice siding with them.

Now, Chief Justice John Roberts, over the last few years, there's been a lot been said about where he stands and how he's doing things. But Kavanaugh and Barrett, Elie, as you are looking at this and thinking about this court going forward, does it tell us anything about how conservative it might end up being or not being or where they might moderate, where they might not?

ELIE HONIG, CNN LEGAL COMMENTATOR: I think this is really significant because it -- we have seen many decisions lately that have broken straight along these six to three lines. Very predictably, conservative with the six, liberals with the three. And Chief Justice Roberts had long been, sort of, a consensus seeker. Looking to avoid having the Roberts court become the court where the term it became hopelessly split by the ideology.

And we are seeing signs now that -- particularly, Chief Justice Roberts, he's been doing this for a while, but also Justice Kavanaugh is willing to not rule based on, well, what the conservative outcome somehow, I'll formulate it to get there. And has shown willingness, as in this case to say, you know, this infant (ph) state legislature theory is a conservative theory. Chief Justice Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Barrett are conservative justices but they said -- essentially what they're saying here is, whatever we may want the policy outcome to be, sometimes the law just doesn't get you there.

So, I think it's an encouraging sign for people who would like our court to not be outcome oriented and to not be ideological.

SIDNER: Do you think it's trusting though? I mean, just -- you know, right now, the court is under a lot of pressure. There has been a lot of mistrust in the public's point.

HONIG: It's interesting -- I mean, there's no way to know to what extent they're trying to do this to allay public concerns, but you're right. The Supreme Court -- opinion of the Supreme Court is in all- time low, and we've seen that. But I think if we see more opinions like, then that may help rebuild public trust. And let me say, the liberals don't often flip over to the conservative side.

SIDNER: Right.

BERMAN: Yes.

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN NEWS CENTRAL CO-ANCHOR: Yes.

HONIG: We've not seen much of any of that recently either.

BOLDUAN: On, this one, especially though, did seem that the justices had little appetite to be going with this theory that was presented in court.

Let's get back over to Jessica Shneider, she's outside the court. Take us inside this decision. What kind of -- what are you hearing from the majority and even in the descent, what are you hearing? JESSICA SCHNEIDER, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, what jumps out right away is how -- this is obviously written by Chief Justice John Roberts, and it is joined by several of the liberals including Justice Sotomayor, Justice Kagan, Justice Jackson. So, all three of the liberal justices. However, it does seem to be, you know, off the bat rooted in what conservative justices always look for, and that's looking at the history of this nation. And especially in this case when it comes to the role of courts.

So, Chief Justice John Roberts says, you know, the question here in this case is whether the election clause that prescribes the time, place, and manner for legislatures to decide. Whether that clause insulates state legislatures from review by state courts for compliance with state law. In other words, whether or not legislatures can be checked or overseen by state courts.

[10:35:00]

And then Chief Justice Roberts, in his opinions says, since early in our nation's history, courts have recognized their duty to evaluate the constitutionality of legislative acts.

So, while -- you know, the conservatives that pushed this independent state legislature theory, and one of the courts who adopt it wholeheartedly, the court is coming back here in the six-three- decision saying that, throughout our nation's history state courts and courts in general have always checked the power of the legislative branch to make sure that it is within the realm or the bounds of a state or a federal constitution.

So, that's really the crux of this idea here. Whereas, you know, conservatives wanted the court just to look at the constitution and take it, you know, in those few words that said, legislatures can prescribe all these rules, time, place, manner, and can really have their say about how federal elections are run. The Supreme Court here is saying, no. There has to be some sort of check on that to make sure that whatever rules the states legislature, a partisan body is putting into place, there needs to be some check on that to make sure that is -- it is within the bounds of the state and the federal constitution here.

So, yes, six-three ruling really striking down that conservative push to let state lawmakers run wild, perhaps, with election laws and election rules as we go into 2024, guys.

BERMAN: No, question. A very significant ruling from the Supreme Court, mostly because of what it means will not now happen.

SIDNER: Right.

BERMAN: It does have big political implications. We're going to have much more to discuss on this. Stick around, we'll be right back. This is "CNN News Central".

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:40:00]

BERMAN: All right. A major ruling from the Supreme Court just a few minutes ago, the case was Moore versus Harper. This was the case that's specifically dealt with North Carolina and some redistricting issues. But the bigger overarching issue had to do with what is known as the independent state legislature theory. The idea that state legislatures which had become quite partisan in many cases, one way or the other, they cannot operate unchecked by state courts. State courts, the Supreme Court just ruled, do have a role in elections within states. The legislature can't just do what it wants without any checks. It was a six-three ruling with the Chief Justice John Roberts writing the decision.

Kate.

BOLDUAN: Absolutely. Let's get over to CNN's Senior Supreme Court Analyst Joan Biskupic for more on this. Joan, you were in the court as the decision was being handed down. What did you see?

JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN SENIOR SUPREME COURT ANALYST: It was great, Kate, because, you know, we were wondering whether the justices would actually hear this case and resolve it, because there had been so many changes in North Carolina since the original ruling. There was a new state Supreme Court decision that negated the first one. So, there were all sorts of ways that the justices could have taken an off ramp on this case and not reach the very difficult, very controversial question about state legislative power.

But they took it. And the chief justice says that he has the opinion to announce, you know -- and we're like, he has the opinion to announce in this? Is he going to say, it's moot? And he says, no. He says, this case is not moot, we're going to decide it. And we explained in our opinion, the jurisdictional issue and why we decided to reach this question despite the fact that it had to do with an action from 2021 and an election from 2022, all of which that have been eclipsed by, as I said, developments in North Carolina.

And he said, if you want to find out why we did that, go to our opinion, because the way I spelled it out does not lend itself to oral presentation. So, he gets a little bit of laugh, initially. But then he goes to the meet of the whole thing, which is quite significant for this conservative court that had looked like there had been enough members that would at least be open to this theory from conservatives. And as you had said earlier that Donald Trump's election team had pushed back in 2020, that state legislatures can control all the terms of their election rules without any kind of check from state court judges looking at -- to their state constitutions.

And what the chief announced today from the bench was that, no, states court, state constitutions have a role to ensure that what state legislatures are doing comports with their state laws and also doesn't violate the federal constitution. He stressed a lot of long-standing Supreme Court president that -- going back to Marbury versus Madison. And then earlier 20th century cases that essentially said, state judge have important judicial review power just like federal judges have important judicial review power. But, here's the caveat, and it was a caveat that wasn't tested, Kate. He said, state courts don't have free reign in this area. There are some checks on state courts. But what North Carolina legislatures were arguing here is that there is no role for state courts.

So, as a result, the justice didn't draw really hard and fast boundaries around what state courts can do when they're reviewing these legislative actions.

[10:45:00]

So, that come down the road, but the very important ruling today which will affect the upcoming, you know, elections in 2024 is that state courts, state constitutions will be an important check on state legislatures that might be doing things that could be deemed unfair. And that's exactly what had happened here. This is a case originally arose from action by the North Carolina legislature and it's drawing of a partisan gerrymander that North Carolina state Supreme Court had originally deemed to be very unfair to voters and had violated the North Carolina state constitution.

And what the legislature had done when it came up to the U.S. Supreme Court was said, there was no room for this -- the Supreme Court of North Carolina to do that. Now, the North Carolina Supreme Court has reversed itself in the meantime and that's why there was this jurisdictional question of whether the justices were even undecided. But they decided it, six-three.

It was interesting to watch, Kate, John Roberts sits right in the middle of the bench, and his colleagues to his right and to his left were both watching them with rapt attention as were all of us in the courtroom. You know, because this was an important deal. And I do have to say that one of the justices who joined him, Brett Kavanaugh wrote in a concurrence that, you know, they didn't go so far as to draw boundaries what exactly states court judges could do in this regard. Impart because the North Carolina legislature had pushed such an extreme argument and they'll leave that to another day.

So, quite a momentous decision that will definitely affect the 2024 elections. Kate, John.

SIDNER: Joan Biskupic, thank you so much for that analysis.

I want to go to Steve Vladeck now. If the judges would have ruled differently, this could have led legislatures to be able to do many more things. Suppressing, for example, voters of color, unfairly counting votes. I mean, there's a -- many things that could be put in place. But this is really about checks and balances. Do you see this as, this just reminding people that there are checks and balances in this country that cannot be messed with?

STEVE VLADECK, CNN LEGAL ANALYST AND PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SCHOOL OF LAW: I think that's a big part of it and I think that's big part of why you saw six justices in the majority, including Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett plus the three Democratic appointees. I think it's also about respect for state constitutions. I mean, we have 50 different state constitutions, all of which create different relationships between say, the Texas legislature and the Texas Supreme Court, the North Carolina legislature, the North Carolina Supreme Court.

And here's the U.S. Supreme Court saying, in most cases, in all but the most egregious cases, it's going to be up to the state Supreme Court to decide what the state constitution says and means. In some respect, that's actually a pretty elementary reaffirmation of a pretty canonical constitutional principle.

SIDNER: interesting that the legislature is trying to go against its own state constitution in this particular case. Steve, thank you so much for that.

We've got something new that's coming in right now.

BERMAN: Yes, look, if you want to get a sense of what -- I think largely Democrats think of this ruling --

SIDNER: Yes.

BERMAN: -- and what they were nervous about, in terms of Republican legislatures being able to do. This is a statement from Former President Barack Obama. He writes at the Supreme Court, they rejected the fringe independent state legislature theory that threatened to upend our democracy and dismantle our system of checks and balances by giving state legislatures near total control of federal election laws. This ruling is a resounding rejection of the far-right theory that has been peddled by the election deniers and extremists seeking to undermine our democracy. And it makes clear that courts can continue defending voters rights in North Carolina and in every state.

In other words, What Former President Obama and some were nervous about was that, had the court ruled otherwise, differently this would have opened the doors for state legislatures to act an almost anyway they want. At least without any oversight at all from state --

BOLDUAN: With much less oversight.

SIDNER: With impunity (ph).

BOLDUAN: I mean, their --

SIDNER: Yes.

BOLDUAN: -- of course, like, lawsuits to be filed upon lawsuits.

SIDNER: Right.

BOLDUAN: But this slowed any march to the, you know, to the unfair that might -- that people might have been seeing started in North Carolina or at least continued in North Carolina.

BERMAN: That's exactly right.

SIDNER: But, John, you also quickly mentioned one of the election deniers is Justice Thomas' wife.

BERMAN: Mm-hmm.

SIDNER: Who backed this idea. And now, he has dissented as one of the three dissenters, and I find that fascinating and find that something that people will really be looking at, honing in on.

BERMAN: Absolutely we'll discuss that. Also, worth noting that two Trump appointee judges ruled against, not him exactly, because he wasn't in on this case but the idea that a lot of his supporters have been pushing. They ruled against that.

[10:50:00]

Much more to come on this as well as a lot of other major developing stories. Much more on "CNN News Central", next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BERMAN: All right. Moments ago, a notable claim on the whereabouts of the man who led the revolt in Russia over the weekend, Wagner leader, Yevgeny Prigozhin. Now, the president of Belarus claims that Prigozhin has arrived in that country, but we have not seen him. We have not seen Prigozhin since Saturday. Why?

And this morning, Russian President Vladimir Putin surrounded himself with military units and issued public praise for their response in this weekend revolt. You can see the images here, clearly meant to display and project control. He did say that there were Russian military casualties during the revolt.

CNN's Matthew Chance, live in Moscow this morning with the latest development. Prigozhin maybe in Belarus, at least according to Lukashenko.

MATTHEW CHANCE, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, that's right. I mean, look, we've been waiting for Prigozhin, the mercenary Wagner leader to arrive in Belarus for some time because his exile in that neighboring country, which is a close ally of the Kremlin, of course, was part of the reason the, sort of, push towards Moscow over the weekend, that dramatic military rebellion, armed rebellion was called off. But basically, it disappeared since those scenes that you can see there when he was last seen leaving the Russian City of Rostov-on-Don in a car.

He's now popped up, again, according to the Belarusian leader, Alexander Lukashenko, which is a, you know, pretty reliable source, frankly, when it comes to things happening in Belarus, like this anyway. That he's now in Belarus. And Lukashenko even suggesting that Wagner could work alongside, in some capacity, with the Belarusian military. And so, you know, that's an interesting development as well.

Meanwhile, back here in Moscow, Vladimir Putin absolutely furious still from his speech last night about the military uprising, basically, against him. And speaking to Russian military personnel today at the Kremlin, he thanked them for averting more bloodshed. Take a listen.

[10:55:00]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

VLADIMIR PUTIN, RUSSIAN PRESIDENT (through translator): Real defenders of the motherland who took part in fighting as comrades against this chaos result of which inevitably would have been chaos. You saved our people, our homeland. Virtually, you stopped a civil war. In actual fact, you stopped a civil war.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CHANCE: Yes, stopped a civil war. This is -- stopped civil war. This is the Kremlin trying to portray the resistance or the response to the uprising instead of an act -- instead of being a, sort of, sign of weakness, a sign of national unity. John.

BERMAN: All right. Matthew Chance, thank you so much for the update. Keep us posted.

Kate.

BOLDUAN: We have that and we also have a lot of other news coming in this morning including the breaking news out of the Supreme Court. The decision from a coalition of justices shutting down efforts by state legislatures to have greater control over elections. We're going to break down what that means.

Plus, the CNN exclusive, audiotapes obtained by CNN of Former President Trump discussing classified information, you'll hear it for yourself. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:00:00]