Return to Transcripts main page
CNN News Central
Utah Passes Bill That Allows Process To Ignore Federal Law; FDA Expands Use Of Asthma Drug To People With Food Allergies; Crew Abandons Ship After Houthi Attack; U.S. Investigating Crash Of Unmanned Air Force Drone In Yemen. Ex-Congressman Santos Sues Jimmy Kimmel Over Cameo Videos. Aired 2:30-3p ET
Aired February 19, 2024 - 14:30 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:33:29]
BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: Utah Governor Spencer Cox just signed into law a bill making it legal for the state to potentially sidestep federal law.
It's called the Utah Constitutional Sovereignty Act. It creates a process where state lawmakers can overrule or otherwise ignore federal rules and decisions.
And it's the latest move by some Republican-led states to stand up to what they see as federal overreach.
Let's discuss with Michael Gerhardt. He's a law professor at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. He's also the author of the recently released book, "The Law of Presidential Impeachment."
Michael, good afternoon and thank you for being with us.
In your eyes, do you see this sovereignty act as being constitutional?
MICHAEL GERHARDT, LAW PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA: No, not at all. There's no way that act is constitutional.
It violates the original Constitution. And the original Constitution has something called the Supremacy Clause. And the Supremacy Clause says, among other things, that state laws that are contrary to the U.S. Constitution are not legal or permissible. And that's exactly what this Utah law is.
We fought a Civil War to re-establish the point that federal authority overrides state authority on matters that relate to federal Constitutional law.
So a state or state officials have no discretion to avoid compliance with federal law if it applies to whatever they're doing.
[14:35:00]
SANCHEZ: So supporters argue that this merely creates a process, a formalized way to sort of adjudicate what they want to do. It doesn't actually overturn any federal laws. It just gives an apparatus for the state to challenge federal decision-making.
Does that make it any less likely that it could be challenged through the courts?
GERHARDT: Well, you don't need a law in order for state officials to challenge a federal law in court that the state officials think is unconstitutional.
So the question becomes, what difference does this state law make? It's largely, I think, performative. It's meant to sort of signal somehow, by its evening title, that the state of Utah is, it's constituted somehow sovereign.
Well, it's only sovereign as long as it's consistent with the U.S. Constitution. And there's no way to get around that fact. That fact is the basis for all constitutional law.
SANCHEZ: There could be significant exposure for state employees. The law says that they could be directed to follow state laws rather than federal laws. Doesn't that create a bind as in legal liability for officials in Utah?
GERHARDT: Well, it does in one sense if state officials are willing to rely on that state law.
But state officials in Utah, like officials everywhere in the United States, take an oath also under the federal Constitution. And the federal Constitution overrides any state law to the contrary. That's exactly what the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution says.
So for example, I would presume people in Utah, the very people that put this together, care about original meaning. And original meaning of the federal Constitution is states lose when they conflict with the federal government's laws.
It's just that straightforward, just that simple. Again, we fought a Civil War to settle that proposition. I think the state of Utah and others just want to refight that already lost battle.
SANCHEZ: What kind of federal laws or regulations do you anticipate might come up for review by Utah?
GERHARDT: Well, it's a good question. And it's hard to predict but I would think anything that state officials in Utah just disagree with it.
It could be immigration law. It could be bankruptcy law. It could be a federal regulation of interstate commerce that state officials don't like.
But the fact that state officials do not like a federal law is not a basis on which they can legitimately disobey it.
Again, their job is to follow the law. And that includes the U.S. Constitution. If they don't do that, they are on the wrong business.
SANCHEZ: Michael Gerhardt, we have to leave the conversation there. Appreciate your perspective.
GERHARDT: Thank you.
SANCHEZ: Thanks.
Brianna?
BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: There is new hope for people with multiple food allergies. The FDA has just approved the expanded use of an asthma drug to help lessen the severity of allergic reactions to foods like nuts, milk, eggs, just to name a few.
The drug here is called Xolair, and the FDA says it can help reduce the risk of an allergic reaction to foods in certain adults and children.
CNN's Jacqueline Howard is joining us now.
Jacqueline, I know that so many people are paying attention to this story. This affects so many families. Tell us more about the new use for this medication.
JACQUELINE HOWARD, CNN HEALTH REPORTER: That's right, Brianna. Xolair, it's administered as an injection. It's given once every two weeks or once every four weeks. This is approved for both children and adults ages 1 and older.
And I should say this does not work like an EpiPen. It's not a treatment if someone is having an active allergic reaction.
Instead, FDA official, Dr. Kelly Stone describes it like this:
Quote, "While it will not eliminate food allergies or allow patients to consume food allergens freely, it's repeated use will help reduce the health impact if accidental exposure occurs."
So that means, Brianna, this is really to reduce your body's risk of having a severe reaction.
KEILAR: That's -- that's amazing.
So how well does it work? And are there any potential side effects?
HOWARD: Yes. What we know from clinical trials, this is looking at patients with a peanut allergy.
Those who were given Xolair, about 68 percent of them when they were exposed to a single dose of peanuts, did not have a moderate to severe reaction. And that's in comparison with only 6 percent of people who were given a placebo.
Now, there are side effects with this injection. There could be reactions at the injection site. Or fever is another side effect. But this could potentially impact a lot of people. We know that about 6 percent of people in the U.S. have food allergies.
The only thing here is cost. Xolair costs about $2,900 a month for kids, $5,000 a month for adults. Of course, insurance can cover that, but that's a whole other question is cost -- Brianna?
[14:40:04]
KEILAR: That is a big price tag, but the effects are pretty great there. So we'll see where this goes.
(CROSSTALK)
KEILAR: Jacqueline Howard, thank you so much for that.
Coming up. U.S. officials are investigating after a drone crashed in Yemen. More on who is claiming responsibility for shooting it down, next.
And late-night TV host, Jimmy Kimmel, facing a new lawsuit. The ex- congressman who is taking him to court, and the allegations against him, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEILAR: The U.S. is now investigating what happened to an unmanned Air Force drone. A U.S. military official says it crashed in Yemen this morning. The Iranian-backed Houthis claimed to have shot this down.
[14:45:03]
And we've also just learned that a crew aboard a commercial ship in the Gulf of Aden has been forced to abandon ship following an attack by Houthi rebels.
We have CNN's Natasha Bertrand following this for us.
Natasha, what are you learning about these attacks?
NATASHA BERTRAND, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Brianna, so were learning that a U.K.-registered vessel that was operating in the Gulf of Aden in the southern Red Sea did have to be evacuated after being hit by a Houthi missile earlier in the day.
And it was evacuated with the help of a U.S. warship as well as with the help of another commercial vessel that was in the area. That crew was transported safely to a port that was nearby, according to a statement from U.S. Central Command.
Now, according to officials that we've spoke to, this was not just a U.K.-registered ship. It was Belize flagged and Lebanese operated. So the crew of the ship was not even associated with the West, with the U.S. and with the Israelis, which is what the Houthis have been saying, is the reason for them attacking these vessels in the Red Sea.
Further underscoring the U.S.'s point here. But these attacks have been extremely indiscriminate.
But look, the U.S. is also hitting back at the Houthis. Just a few days ago, they launched several strikes on Houthi infrastructure, Houthi weaponry inside Yemen, saying they were preparing to launch strikes against Red Sea shipping.
As well as preparing to launch a new capability, an undersea drone that U.S. officials have been particularly concerned about just because they are very easily hidden. And so the U.S. was able to take that out.
But it just underscores here that the Houthis clearly have not been deterred by the many strikes that the U.S. and the U.K. have carried out on Houthi territory inside Yemen over the last several months.
And we are learning, as you mentioned, that the U.S. is investigating whether or not the Houthis were able to shoot down an M.Q.-9 drone that was flying over Yemen, or if it's simply crash. That is currently under investigation.
However, we should note, it would not be the first time that the Houthis have been able to successfully shoot down an American drone -- Brianna?
KEILAR: All right, Natasha Bertrand, live for us from the Pentagon.
Boris?
SANCHEZ: Now to some of the other headlines were watching this hour.
A shooting at a Waffle House in Indianapolis killed one person and injured at least five others. Police say that preliminary information suggests the overnight incident started with a disturbance between two groups that then escalated to gunfire.
Meantime, officials in Washington State say that a cougar stalked and then attacked a group of five mountain bikers on a trail this Saturday, injuring one of the cyclists.
They managed to pin down that cougar and call emergency services before a wildlife official arrived and put the animal down. A second cougar was apparently there and ultimately fled.
And last night was one for the NBA record books. The East beat the West, 211 to 186, at Sunday night's all-star game.
The winners scoring the most points in the game's 73-year history, beating the previous record set in 2016 by 15 points. The MVP, Damian Lillard, of the Milwaukee Bucks, dropping 39 of those 200-plus points.
Still ahead, disgraced former lawmaker, George Santos, is now suing Jimmy Kimmel. For what? Fraud. How Santos, an accused fraudster himself, claims that Kimmel deceived him. When we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:52:50]
SANCHEZ: How is this for irony? An alleged fraudster suing someone for allegedly committing fraud. Disgraced former Congressman George Santos says that Jimmy Kimmel tricked him into making cameo videos and illegally broadcast them on his late-night talk show.
Santo's suit says that Kimmel broke copyright laws when he took his cameo clips and used them for a bit on his show, that he called "Will Santos Say It?"
Here's an example.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JIMMY KIMMEL, HOST, "JIMMY KIMMEL LIVE!": "Will Santos say it?"
(LAUGHTER)
KIMMEL: Let's find out.
GEORGE SANTOS, (R), FORMER CONGRESSMAN: He, Gary for tuna.
(LAUGHTER)
SANTOS: George Santos here. I just wanted to stop by to congratulate you for winning the Clearwater, Florida, beef-eating contest.
(LAUGHTER)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(LAUGHTER)
KEILAR: There's so many in there and they're so good.
Tom Foreman here with us now.
Tell us about this lawsuit and how Santos says he was tricked by Kimmel. And does he really have a case?
TOM FOREMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, you know, basically, the argument here -- whether he has a case, it's up to the courts to decide.
Basically, what he is saying is that Jimmy Kimmel lured him into this. His attorney said they took advantage of Santos' good nature to play along with his cameo videos.
And that in doing so, he recorded these videos, which, you know, you can reach out to celebrities, semi-celebrities, people have any sort of note, and you pay them and they record a message for you.
So Kimmel called and he made up these kinds of ridiculous things, like the beef-eating contest, which, as you know, I won.
(LAUGHTER) FOREMAN: And then Santos recorded these messages, which Jimmy Kimmel put on his show under this monitor -- this banner of "Will Santos Say It?"
Santos is very upset about this. He said he'd been making money from the cameo. Kimmel had no right to do it. And -- and the amount he wants, he says, you add it all up, $750,000 is what he would want from Kimmel for having done this.
SANCHEZ: It could be a significant amount of Botox.
Isn't the point of cameo though to make money --
FOREMAN: Yes.
SANCHEZ: -- from requests to make videos. So is there something in the terms and conditions here?
FOREMAN: Well, this is the argument from Santos' lawyer. He's saying, yes, there are terms here, that this is for personal use. it's not for professional use.
SANCHEZ: Oh.
FOREMAN: You can't call somebody and then put it on TV.
[14:55:03]
And also, they're pointing to the idea that this was misrepresented, which Kimmel said himself. One of his comments about this was, look, I didn't send a message that said, "This is Jimmy Kimmel, tells me something that I can put on TV and make fun of you with."
In fact, he sent a message that basically said, "I've got these alter egos." He made up these different groups. And asked as if he were a real person asking for this.
"In which the cameo person would say, I just did a message for your aunt, for your grandmother, for your uncle, for your beef-eating champion friend.
(CROSSTALK)
KEILAR: -- been he wants you back home that was --
(CROSSTALK)
(LAUGHTER)
FOREMAN: Your husband would want you back home --
KEILAR: To see the kids.
(CROSSTALK)
FOREMAN: But I mean, the deal is, even if he wins the money, Santos has got his own big cases coming up here. So however, this case turns out, he's going to have other court time in front of him.
KEILAR: Could he have -- you know, did he have the right to refuse to make the video had he known?
FOREMAN: Yes. I don't think -- I mean, the terms of candy or you can't ask some celebrities, some C-list Hollywood star to say, I want you to record a cameo confessing to a crime, because obviously they would say I'm not going to do that.
So there's some -- but I mean, the whole joke here really was that Santos, in Kimmel's mind, he's going to say just about anything if you pay him some money to do it. That's the joke .
I will find out if it's funny as they think or not.
SANCHEZ: Beef-eating champion, Tom Foreman. You didn't get his cameos.
FOREMAN: Yes.
SANCHEZ: Just download the app.
KEILAR: They're probably free.
SANCHEZ: Pure gold.
(LAUGHTER)
SANCHEZ: Oh, oh.
KEILAR: I'm just saying. I don't think we can do that.
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: Oh, wow, wow.
KEILAR: I didn't mean I wouldn't pay for them. I just want to be clear --
(CROSSTALK)
KEILAR: -- do cameos -
SANCHEZ: He's an alleged reptilian. People think --
(CROSSTALK)
KEILAR: -- go over here now --
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: -- pull this knife out on my back. Just great. Thank you.
FOREMAN: I'll do that.
SANCHEZ: We'll be right back.
KEILAR: I misunderstood.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
