Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Bloomberg: Document Mistakenly Posted On Supreme Court Site Shows 6-3 Vote To Allow Emergency Abortions In Idaho For Now; One Day Away: President Joe Biden And Donald Trump Face Off Tomorrow Night In CNN Debate; Sources: President Joe Biden To Attack Donald Trump As Unfit For Office During CNN Debate; President Joe Biden And Donald Trump Gearing Up For Debate Showdown Tomorrow In Atlanta. Aired 2- 2:30p ET

Aired June 26, 2024 - 14:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:01:29]

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: We begin with breaking news, the Supreme Court appearing poised to side with a Biden administration on a critical abortion case. This according to a document mistakenly posted on the court's website. The copy reviewed by Bloomberg showed the court voting 6-3 to allow emergency abortions to take place in Idaho on a temporary basis while the case continues to the lower courts.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: Right now, Idaho law prohibits doctors from offering the procedure to pregnant women unless their life is at risk, health isn't enough. Because of this, Idaho hospital say they had been forced to send some pregnant patients to medivac them, out of state for basic care.

CNN is covering this from all angles with our chief legal affairs correspondent Paula Reid, as well as our Supreme Court analyst -- our Senior Supreme Court analyst, I should say, Joan Biskupic, and also with us is the founder and CEO of Whole Women's Health, Amy Hagstrom Miller.

First to you, Paula, tell us about what happened here and what's in this.

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: So, this reporting is coming from Bloomberg Law. At this point, they have not posted what they say is an opinion that was inadvertently posted on the Supreme Court website. We have not reviewed it ourselves.

But in a statement, the Supreme Court acknowledges that a document was posted and I want to read their statement because I'm pretty careful with the language, the statement from the Supreme Court. "The opinion and Moyle v. United States and Idaho v. United States this case has not been released. The court's publications unit inadvertently and briefly uploaded a document to the courts website. The court's opinion in this case will be issued in due course." So, it does appear that they're trying to differentiate kind of formal opinion and this document that was posted there, but two big things. The first is what it appears that they may have decided, and then how is this a second time that we're having a leak of a major abortion case?

Let's take first what they decided according to what Bloomberg Law saw, they're saying that the justices in a 6-3 decision sided with the Biden administration, and they will allow abortions to be performed in the state of Idaho in emergency situations and not just in situations where a woman's life is at risk.

Now, the other question is, of course, this is the second time that a major abortion related ruling has leaked inadvertently out of the Supreme Court. It's a stunning breach of protocol. And it's notable because we're about 36 hours out from our debate, which is I think everyone would agree, a pivotal moment in this campaign. There are at least 10 cases still pending that haven't been released. We only have two days. And it's unclear if any of these opinions, specifically the abortion one would come out before the debate.

Now, I've reached out to the stakeholders, the Justice Department, the White House, even the Trump campaign, because this is something that both campaigns are watching very closely, a decision that could potentially have an impact on November, everyone so far declining to comment until the actual opinion is released.

SANCHEZ: Yes, Joan, this is obviously a huge deal politically, but it means quite a bit when it comes to the actual case itself. Let's take a step back and walk us through the oral arguments that got us here.

JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN SENIOR SUPREME COURT ANALYST: Sure, because this is clearly a compromise. And one other thing about this disclosure, this is completely a self-inflicted wound by these justices. It didn't like accidentally get into the hands of somebody else. This is the justices, their tech team actually putting it up for the public to see or at least briefly enough for Bloomberg to see.

OK, so during oral arguments in this case that were in the last week in April, they were very tightly divided. You couldn't really tell who was going to win for sure. But you did know that Idaho went into it with the upper hand because the justices had agreed to let the Idaho law take effect. So, that made it look like Idaho was already kind of having the upper hand.

[14:05:07]

And I have to say Boris, the arguments kind of broke down along gender lines. And some of us wondered if because the four women on our Court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the newest justice, Justice Sotomayor, Justice Kagan, and conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett seem to be most resisting having this Idaho ban eclipse federal protections.

And you know, when I saw that divided, I thought, how is this going to happen? The court does not want to release that kind of decision. I think this is so clearly a compromise, if this is all true, that enough justices decided, we're not going to -- we're going to set this aside. We're going to dismiss this as -- to use their legalistic words as improvidently granted, let's let all the litigation play out in lower courts.

Because right now, Idaho is defending its ban in the face of the Justice Department saying that it cannot be enforced against women who need this emergency room treatment.

So, what's going to happen on the ground, Boris, is that Idaho women will be able to go to emergency rooms and have abortions if needed for medical reasons, if in emergencies, not just to prevent death as the state law says. But there'll be litigation going on in lower courts.

And according to what Bloomberg has released, there were three outright dissenters, Justices Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch. But Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote that this is not necessarily a good thing across the board, because it means that there's no certainty about what would happen. Whereas Justice Elena Kagan, also with the majority to dismiss it, according to what Bloomberg is saying said, this decision will prevent Idaho from enforcing its abortion ban when the termination of a pregnancy is needed to prevent serious harms to women's health.

So, you know, I think -- I think that was probably the prevailing sentiment from most of the justices who signed on, like, let's do this as a temporary measure, let's make it work. Let's remove this hot issue, where as I said, it really looked like they were tightly divided, and that's -- you couldn't tell who was definitely going to prevail. Let's kick it down the road for the temporary time, women in the state are protected.

KEILAR: This was a very narrow argument when we were watching it be made, Paula. And it really got to that issue that I think has animated so much discussion since the Dobbs decision, which is in the case of wanted pregnancies, when there are complications.

And I mean, I think a lot of people are familiar with the idea that if a woman's water breaks, and she is very well along in her pregnancy, there is an attempt to deliver the baby rather quickly because having an open membrane is at risk to the health of the woman and then to the health of the baby.

This, it comes at a point where certainly the fetus is much more immature. So, then, the law raises this big question that puts these health professionals in conflict about what to do here.

And to that point, that sort of core issue of what to do, kicking the can down the road on that, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson riding separately, to say that she wouldn't have dismissed the case according to this copy from Bloomberg. "Today's decision is not a victory for pregnant patients in Idaho. It is a delay."

Well, this court dawdles. She says, and the country waits, pregnant women experiencing emergency medical conditions remain in a precarious position, as their doctors are kept in the dark about what the law requires. What do you make of that? REID: Well, Joan was just getting at this, this leaves ambiguity, right? There's no certainty.

And when they overturned Roe v. Wade, send it back down to the states who are always going to come up against questions about what do you do when you have a state that has really restricted abortion in this case, in all circumstances, except for there's a risk to the life of a mother. And that comes up against, for example, federal laws.

And here we're talking about what happens in emergency room situations, federal law requiring medical facilities like this to stabilize patients. And if an abortion is required to stabilize a patient, they're saying that is -- that is the law that should -- that should rule here.

And here, Justices is alluding to the fact that this isn't the final word. They're not actually deciding this based on the law in answering that question, what Trump's federal state law instead, you know, there's sort of sidestepping that question, it will continue to be litigated throughout multiple states. I think over the next few years, we can expect these challenges will return.

SANCHEZ: And go ahead, Joan.

BISKUPIC: The other thing I was going to mention, you know, since the three justices who voted to undercut Roe, two voted to overturn Roe are in this majority, and one is Justice Barrett, and the other is Justice Kavanaugh, and the, you know, three others who dissented here -- apparently dissented here were part of that Dobbs majority two years ago.

[14:10:06]

So, you know, you can see, this is -- as I say, this is the first chapter in the last two years to really kind of see what abortion access will be. And we thought we'd have an answer.

And for internal court reasons, for social reasons, and maybe for political reasons, it appears we will not have that answer.

SANCHEZ: Undoubtedly, more battles ahead. Let's get Amy's perspective on this.

Amy, what's your reaction to this ruling, or at least this ruling document that was inadvertently posted by the court?

AMY HAGSTROM MILLER, FOUNDER AND CEO, WHOLE WOMEN'S HEALTH: Well, like all of you, I haven't seen anything that actually is officially from the court. I think this points to how messy this Supreme Court is. This is the second time we've had a decision that really has people's lives in its hands leaked from the court and it's put us into this situation of ambiguity and confusion.

My experience with this kind of thing is that that's exactly what we're going to have on the ground. Imagine yourself as a pregnant person in any state that has banned abortion or restrict abortion, or as a -- as a provider, as a professional medical person who's trying to figure out what you're allowed to do to save the life and the health of the people that are in your hands.

This is incredibly confusing. I think sending it back to the district court is not really counted as a win. And I think it's important just like your previous guests were talking about, for us to really pay attention to this, what Justice Brown Jackson clarified in her statement, I think, is very important for us to pay attention to.

I think it's important to remember that abortion at any point in pregnancy is always safer than pregnancy. I think we have really become to think about abortion as a political issue. Yet, abortion is a health care issue. Abortion saves lives, abortion is absolutely necessary, oftentimes in emergency room settings to protect the health of the pregnant person, and to be sure that they are able to continue their lives.

And I think providers really understand that their hands have been tied post Roe here, since the Dobbs decision in numerous states, in numerous parts of the country.

So, this isn't only about Idaho. This is really something that all eyes are watching from multiple states across the country, to try to figure out what we're able to do to provide basic health care even if abortion has been restricted.

Other thing I would add is this EMTALA ruling goes back to Reagan. This is about emergency medical care, and standing by people and taking care of them to preserve the health and the life of people who present in emergency rooms all across the country.

EMTALA is not about abortion specifically, it is right and just for us to uphold EMTALA and allow people no matter where they are to get access to safe medical care in emergency situations, including abortion care.

KEILAR: Yes, important that you point that out. Amy, thank you so much for that. Paula and Joan, thank you as well.

And as if the stakes weren't high enough, the breaking news coming as both the Biden and Trump campaigns are finalizing their strategies for tomorrow's presidential debate.

SANCHEZ: We're only about 30 something hours away. Let's bring in CNN Chief National Affairs Correspondent Jeff Zeleny who's live at the debate site. Jeff, how does this change the prep work that goes in to getting ready for this huge moment?

JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: There's no doubt that both sides have been really watching the Supreme Court and what opinions that could issue over the next coming days.

Of course, opinions are expected tomorrow and Friday. This brief leak was not in the plan, but certainly was part of the cases that the sides were getting ready for. And there's a couple different ways you can look at this. Yes, a

temporary victory if this -- the report from Bloomberg is true, but for the Biden administration, a temporary victory, but also could take away a bit of the argument that the Biden campaign is trying to make to portray this Supreme Court as a scary Supreme Court, if you will, in the eyes of progressives and liberals when it comes to abortion.

One of the central arguments for the Biden campaign has been abortion rights and access. Of course, that's one of the major differences in this debate from the last time that Donald Trump and Joe Biden met on stage, the Dobbs decision that overturned Roe vs. Wade.

So, abortion has become a central theme of the midterm campaigns in this campaign. But will this take away some of the sort of sting if you will, in the words and the threats of what the President Biden has been trying to argue that the Supreme Court is, you know, trying to block abortion access and that the former President Trump is -- and other Republicans are interested in a national abortion ban? He has said, let's leave it to the states. This is one example.

So, look, perhaps more interesting. The campaigns are focusing on what the court could do tomorrow in rulings. Is there a ruling in the immunity case?

So, this is one example of how debate preparations are fluid. They're reacting in real time to real events in the world. And this certainly is one of them.

[14:15:10]

SANCHEZ: Yes, and we could see more decisions come down tomorrow, we'll see how that might affect debate prep as we're only just hours away.

ZELENY: Right.

SANCHEZ: Joseph Ziegler live from the debate site. I thank you so much.

Still ahead, much more on the debate, including what caused the Trump team to suddenly overhaul its messaging in the days leading up to the showdown

KEILAR: And new video out of Minnesota were catastrophic floods sent this house plunging into a river, this as a nearby dam is close to collapsing. All of these stories and more ahead on CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:20:19]

We are just one day away from the CNN presidential debate and we're told that both Biden and Trump camps want to focus on two big issues on voter's minds, the economy and immigration.

KEILAR: Let's go to CNN's Priscilla Alvarez at the White House. Priscilla, I know you have some new reporting on Biden's plan to go on the offensive. What can you tell us?

PRISCILLA ALVAREZ, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, that's right. Look, sources telling me that immigration isn't the defining issue for the Biden campaign going into this debate. But they're certainly preparing the president for it.

Of course, the White House has released or rolled out a series of announcements over recent weeks. And that was no coincidence. This was part of their timing, that executive action clamping down on asylum access at the U.S. southern border and also giving a pathway to citizenship for certain spouses and children of U.S. citizens in the U.S.

Now, of course, all of this again, trying to blunt any attacks from former President Donald Trump and allies in the meantime have been trying to tell the campaign how to blunt those attacks, knowing that the former president is going to talk about for example, migrant crime.

But again, all of this is still part of the broader preparations that are ongoing right now. The president is hunkered down at Camp David where he is huddling with his advisers on a range of issues. They've taken to practicing mock debates using a podium, and also going through multiple scenarios.

And we know also a little bit about what the president isn't going to do. And that is announced any policies or personnel changes. He's also going to try to draw that stark contrast outside of immigration also on democracy, abortion and the economy.

Of course, those have been the issues that the Biden campaign has tried to seize on going into November.

And then two, talking about foreign policy. This we know has taken up a lot of the president's time in recent months, to even instability across the globe.

And it is an opportunity for them to show or make the argument that former President Donald Trump poses a risk to democracy but also to global stability and that the president, President Biden, is the one up to the task of especially grappling and dealing with foreign policy at this time.

And so, all of these issues are expected to come together on the debate stage, they are preparing the president for that possibility and really getting into the weeds and hunkering down over the next several hours. Brianna, Boris.

SANCHEZ: Priscilla Alvarez live from the White House. Thank you so much.

Let's discuss debate prep for former President Trump with Republican Congressman Dan Meuser of Pennsylvania.

Congressman, thank you so much for being with us. We should note, he's the co-chair for the Trump campaign in that state. Let's talk about this ruling document that was inadvertedly posted by

the Supreme Court about Idaho and abortion access there.

Congressman, how do you think that's going to play into tomorrow night's debate?

REP. DAN MEUSER (R-PA): Well, good to be with you, Boris.

Well, look, of course, Joe Biden is going to bring up things like abortion, and the frivolous trial in New York, because Joe Biden cannot defend his record, let's face it. So, he's going to be forced to go on the attack.

I mean, as well that the moderators and more than 80 percent of the media will declare him victorious if he's just -- he'll get a magnanimous (ph) decision if he's just standing after 90 minutes. So, those expectations are understood.

But President Trump is out there, he's talking with people. He's got knowledge, knowledge means he understands his policies, he understands his jobs, he doesn't need to be caught up in Camp David, or wherever for six or seven days cramming for a test.

So, in regards to what you're saying, look, this ruling and it will probably play out as was stated. President Trump has stated many, many times, it's up to the people i.e. up to the states. And he is -- and he understands and supports the exceptions such as life of the mother, or what this would state is, the health of the mother, which in the end would come down to the mother, the father, the doctor and God.

So, I don't -- I don't think that's going to be too much of a problem certainly for President Trump. And it's certainly not a problem for me.

SANCHEZ: I don't think that I've heard Donald Trump specifically articulate a position on an emergency situation in which the life of the mother wasn't at risk. He seems to, at times, change his opinion or his stance on abortion, at least historically.

Joe Biden's going to go after him essentially by saying that chaos was unleashed when Roe vs. Wade was overturned, he's going to push for congressional action when it comes to protections for abortion in the Constitution.

[14:25:06]

You don't see that as a weakness for President Trump when polls show that he's lagging behind with support from women?

MEUSER: Look, if that's what Joe Biden is going to focus on and we know it is because he's caused 20 percent inflation since he's gotten into office, we have an unbelievable unmitigated disaster at the border with human trafficking and all kinds of horrible things happening to young women. Not to mention the fentanyl crisis that exists. We have over 5,000 deaths of young people in Pennsylvania, and they don't like calling us a border state and being affected by all this.

So, the only thing, Joe Biden can't defend his record, because all of these things started and continue and will continue in a Biden -- future Biden administration, God forbid.

But on this issue here, the -- Trump has been very clear, very clear, and he doesn't run from the issue of leaving it up to the people and having the exceptions for women.

SANCHEZ: I do want to point out you doubled the actual rate of inflation when it was at its highest point, I think it hit nine percent. It never got past --

MEUSER: I didn't double it, total 20 percent. Let's call it 19.8 during the course of the Biden administration.

SANCHEZ: There's an argument to be made that that doesn't reflect the --

MEUSER: No argument, the numbers don't lie, Boris.

SANCHEZ: There's an argument to be made at the way you presented that, made it sound like something it was not.

Nevertheless, Donald Trump seem --

MEUSER: No, 100 percent honesty.

SANCHEZ: -- Donald Trump seem to acknowledge in an interview with the Washington Examiner that an overly aggressive approach didn't help him in the first debate in 2020. How combative are you expecting the former president to be?

MEUSER: Look, I think he's going to be tough. But there's -- see, here's how I see it. And polls prove me right.

More than half or at least half, let's say, in Pennsylvania of Biden supporters. They're not Biden supporters, they just don't like President Trump's -- Donald Trump's personality.

So, what I believe the president is going to do because he's a winner and he wants to let people know, know him like I know him, OK. He's going to come across friendly. He's going to come across tough, he's going to come across knowledgeable, smart. Certainly energetic, and with the right policies. OK?

Joe Biden's not going to be able to do any of that, because frankly, he's not all that smart. His policy of appeasement is weakness, both in our economy and the national -- our national security. And his policies have been -- have failed -- have failed.

Name one policy that has been -- that has been positive for the American people over the course of the last 3-1/2 years. He's not going to defend his record, he's going to try to attack.

SANCHEZ: Congressman, speaking of defending Trump's record, one issue that I'm certain will come up is the question of January 6th, you were there that day, you helped Capitol police secure the Capitol as it was being attacked by rioters.

You've spoken very openly about how you think that kind of violence should be denounced. Donald Trump has not done that. How would you like to see him handle that subject?

MEUSER: Well, it was a very, very ugly day here. I'm in the Capitol right now, is no -- nothing in between. It was an ugly day, it certainly shouldn't be denounced. It was -- it was four hours, not to -- not to minimize it, because it was our nation's capital.

And I will tell you this, I saw people whose eyes that were -- that were there, that were there to do two things, create mayhem, create violence, and create all kinds of anarchy and chaos and violence and they did.

Most of those people, by the way, in my view, because they were carrying oxygen tanks and all kinds of other equipment, I don't believe were even at the rally. So, the idea of trying to -- trying to pin it on President Trump's words, I think falls way, way short.

So, I do think the president would address it in for what it was, for what the American people saw and denounce it. And move on.

SANCHEZ: And he's talked -- he's talked about -- well, he's talked about pardoning those folks that you were talking about being violent, and that hurt a lot of Capitol police officers and other people as well.

MEUSER: Right. Well, no, no, no, not violent, not people who would hurt police officers, those who were part who got caught up in the riot, if you will (INAUDIBLE).

SANCHEZ: He's called them political prisoners, sir.

MEUSER: No, no, no, I'm talking about the trespassers. There are some that have been to strongly --

SANCHEZ: You've heard Donald Trump differentiate between those folks because I have not?

MEUSER: To strongly prosecuted, OK? And we have weak prosecution on most violent crimes in my cities --

SANCHEZ: You heard Donald Trump differentiate between the folks that were there on January 6th on the Capitol, the ones that you're describing as just getting caught up in the right and violent rioters?

MEUSER: Well, I've had -- I've had -- I've had private conversations with him. So, certainly I have. And of course they should.

OK, if somebody's beating a police officer, and some did, OK, they're far cry different from those who basically wandered in to the Capitol, and they were wrong.

But they should say -- they should receive no more of a -- of a penalty than anybody else who would be -- who would be trespassing.

SANCHEZ: I'm not sure -- I'm not sure there were a whole lot of folks just randomly wandering into the halls of Congress, it certainly doesn't looked like that from where I was standing two blocks away.