Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
Health Care Decision Possible; Key Battle Over Health Care Law; Immigration Decision Possible; Supreme Court Upholds Parts Of Immigration Law; Health Care Ruling to Come Thursday; Key Parts of Immigration Law Rejected
Aired June 25, 2012 - 10:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
CAROL COSTELLO, HOST, CNN NEWSROOM: And good morning to you. Happy Monday. I'm Carol Costello. We begin with breaking news.
Right now we're keeping a close eye on the U.S. Supreme Court for some of the most important decisions in decades. An announcement could come at any moment, or for that matter, any time this week. There's simply no way of telling but we do know the impact. The decision could shape President Obama's legacy, his chances for re- election and most importantly your health.
At issue, whether the government can force you to buy health insurance. Also expected this week a decision in the passionate debate over immigration.
And once again it's a test of federal power. Did Arizona overstep its authority in creating tough new immigration laws? The rulings are sure to ignite new debate on individual rights and on public safety.
Ever since the Supreme Court heard the health care arguments in March, legal experts and journalists have been trying to predict how each justice will vote.
One tried and true method has been measuring how -- how much each member of the court focused on one team of lawyers. If history bears out, the health care reform might be in trouble that's because only a minority of the bench, the four Democratic appointees focused their scrutiny on the lawyers challenging the law.
That list Justices Kagan, Brier, Sotomayor and Ginsberg. Now the members of the court who aim most of their attention at the administration's lawyer, Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. and Justices Samuel Alito and Antonin Escalia were all one sided.
Anthony Kennedy a bit less so, but he appears to be the swing vote. He's a moderate conservative, just as Clarence Thomas rarely speaks during the court's arguments, but historically he has supported conservative values.
We are covering this health care issue from all angles this morning. It's impossible to overstate just how monumental the Supreme Court decision could be.
Now we'll bring in our political team, chief national correspondent John King, senior political analyst Gloria Borger and David Gergen, chief White House correspondent, Jessica Yellin and political director, Mark Preston.
Welcome to all of you. Jessica, I want to start with you. The president will be in New Hampshire and late Massachusetts, which is quite interesting because that's where Romney care is, a version of Obama care? Did he plan it that way?
JESSICA YELLIN, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, they definitely planned to be here this day knowing that the Supreme Court could rule on health care today, and no accident that they could draw this contrast.
I'm not sure they're expecting health care to come down today. I'm not sure all of Washington is expecting this day to be the health care ruling, but we certainly will see -- Carol.
COSTELLO: Does the president have a plan of what he will say if the Supreme Court decides to strike down all or part of Obama care?
YELLIN: Yes. They are geared up and they have made clear that they're reading to take action once a decision is made. They're not telling us what their plan is, but a few -- there are a few things we're clear about.
One is that during the arguments, the Justice Department made clear in their -- in the case that they submitted and in the arguments that they made that if the Supreme Court should try to strike down the individual mandate, they believe they should sever only certain parts of the law.
And they should let stand other parts of the law so that the pre-existing conditions part, for example would go in that imagination with the individual mandate and another piece would go with the individual mandate.
But some of these other components, such as covering kids who are 26 on their parents plan could still stand. Covering -- giving people pre-preventative health care could still stand, lowering prescription drug costs.
So for example, if the decision allows this component to stand, one would imagine that the White House or the Obama campaign would be ready to rule out and make clear that those components do stand.
Should they strike down the whole law, one could imagine that both the White House and the campaign are ready to make clear to Americans, quote, "in their conceptions just what Americans have lost."
And then to call on the Republicans to say, OK, guys, what have you got? How are you going to cover Americans?
COSTELLO: OK, so that's a lot. So let's back up a bit and discuss how monumental this decision will be. David Gergen, tell us.
DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, first and foremost, this is going to be monumental for the 20 million or 30 million people who would be insured over the next few years.
But beyond that, the health of every American is going to be affected by this and the political health of President Obama is going to deeply affected by this.
Again, I think you have to go all the way back to Franklin Roosevelt to find a time when the Supreme Court of the United States has risen up and struck down a signature policy of the president of the United States.
It happened during the new deal and President Roosevelt eventually went war against the court over this because the court was striking his signature issued.
It's been a long, long time. If the court strikes down the mandate, it's obviously a question about what happens to health care, but there are huge political and historic ramifications.
COSTELLO: And let's talk about some of those, Gloria Borger, Republicans have already made a GOP response guy. He is Representative Tom Price.
He's a physician from Georgia. He is ready to go with a Republican message. I have heard one more than one Republican say, if the U.S. Supreme Court strikes down this law, we'll just start fresh and come up with something new, how likely is that?
GLORIA BORGER, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, before the election, I think the chances of that are zero. And I think you had the House speaker send out a memo this past week saying, you know what? If this health care law gets struck down, do not spike the ball.
And the reason he is saying that is what the White House is going to do and Jes would know about this than I would, but if this gets struck down and for example, if the question of pre-existing conditions does get struck down with it.
Then the White House can say, OK, Republicans, what do you want to do next? Where is your plan to make sure that people with pre- existing conditions do not lose their coverage? So it's a very complicated nuanced response from both sides.
And what I think the House speaker was saying to Republicans is essentially be careful what you wish for, because if you get it, you have to figure out what to do next.
And if you get it, then Mitt Romney loses one of his sorts of signature campaign points, which is repeal the president's health care plan.
COSTELLO: Yes, so it will already be gone. BORGER: Right.
COSTELLO: John King, I want to bring you into this too. I mean, I remember the health care debate too. I'm sure you do too. It was one of the most contentious debates in American history. So when Republicans say, we'll just start fresh. You know, we're a partisan nation right now, how likely is that from that angle?
JOHN KING, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Remember, Carol, the Republicans were the minority in the House when we went through the health care debate.
The Democrats control the House when the president passed it. You have a different Republican Party now, especially because a lot of the newer Tea Party influence members who have never won don't think the government should be doing this.
Number two don't think the government should be spending anymore more money, so the Republican position if this is struck down or if a lot of it is struck down would be even more complicated and even more confusing than it might have been before the 2010 election.
But, look, Gloria is right. The Republicans realize they need to be careful because parts of the law are popular. The Republicans are confident in the sense that they think the mandate, for example, the government telling you, you have to buy health care.
They believe there's majority opposition of the country to that, but pre-existing conditions making sure you can get insurance if you have pre-existing conditions, they know that's popular.
What Jes just mentioned about kids being able to stay on their parents' health care a little bit longer after they get out of college, they know that's popular. So there are other pieces here that are popular.
So what the Republicans would need to say is that we are prepared to come forward and do much of this if not all of this as soon as possible. Would that before the election? The clock is ticking too fast.
Now also, Carol, if it's struck down, will revive a lot of questions about whether the president over reached when he did this. Remember, he was quite popular when he took office.
A lot of people thought he should focus more on the economy and jobs out of the gateway, instead he tried to do this democratic priority for a half a century, passing a big bill health care bill, and he did that and he paid a big political price for it.
And if he loses on this one, yes, he'll use it as a campaign issue. Yes, he will try to rally the base of the party, but a lot of people will go back and say, Mr. President, told you so, you should have had a more bipartisan health care bill in the beginning and then tried to build on it. COSTELLO: So the messaging has begun from President Obama and the Democrats, Mark Preston, I know you have been on the phone this morning, what did they tell you?
MARK PRESTON, CNN POLITICAL DIRECTOR: Well, what we do know is that Mitt Romney will tie whatever happens, whether the Supreme Court strikes down the whole law or whether strikes down just the individual mandate.
He will tie this entirely to the economy. And as our panel have all said, it's quite true, who knows really what the political fallout is going to be over the next 120, 130 days.
Some recognize the fact that if the law stands that will be enough to embolden conservatives to get behind Mitt Romney's candidacy and try to help him win in November.
Other folks think that, in fact, if President Obama loses the mandate, if that part of the bill is struck down, that will galvanize the liberal side of the Democratic Party to come out not only raise money for President Obama, but also help him in November.
So there's quite a lot on the line politically and while we're talking about the policy implications, the bottom line is that this is such a political issue here in Washington and all across the country -- Carol.
COSTELLO: All right, Mark, Gloria, David and John stick around, we're going to take a short break. We'll be back much more on this on what could be a momentous decision coming out of the U.S. Supreme Court.
In addition to our coverage today, cnn.com will blog live about what's happening at the court. You can find it at cnn.com/thisjustin. If the rulings as they come down, reaction to the decision, tweets from our reporters covering the story in the field as well as reaction from around the world, cnn.com/thisjustin.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COSTELLO: We've been talking about health care, but we could see a Supreme Court decision on immigration too this morning as you take a look at the scene outside of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington this morning.
Some of these people are tourists. Some are protestors either for or against Obama care. Many of them are reporters. Our Jeffrey Toobin as a matter of fact is inside the court awaiting the court's possible decision on these two momentous things, one on Obama care, the other on Arizona's tough immigration law.
Joining us from Washington, CNN Espanol anchor and correspondent, Juan Carlos Lopez. Good morning.
JUAN CARLOS LOPEZ, CNN ESPANOL ANCHOR AND CORRESPONDENT: Good morning.
COSTELLO: So tell us -- tell us the specific part of Arizona's immigration law that that U.S. Supreme Court is most concerned about.
LOPEZ: Well, what's in dispute right now is the state's rights to decide and to create legislation that deals with immigration. Remember the government has said that immigration policy is something that is for the federal government not the states.
The state in this case, Arizona, says the federal government hasn't done its job to protect the borders so they came out with 1070. That's the only part of the law that will be decided today.
There are lawsuits. There are aspects of 1070, but the question is depending of what the ruling brings. What other states might do using this as guidance to where they can go and what the court considers to be constitutional.
COSTELLO: Yes, this really boils down to states' rights and some of the justices questioned the government's attorneys that, you know, doesn't Arizona have the right to protect its borders?
LOPEZ: And a lot of people we have spoken to, a lot of activists and organizations are prepared for an adverse ruling. They're ready, but they say this is only one aspect of the law. There are other lawsuits that are still in process.
And there are others that will be filed, but this according to these groups and to people who are biting their nail at this moment, I assume, will give states a light to where they can go and where other states can go with different laws and different policies that target illegal immigration.
And in the case of Arizona try to create circumstances so harsh that make people self deport. That's one of the issues. So we'll see what impact this has, but those groups are ready to file their lawsuits. And they're waiting for other lawsuits to come up the system.
COSTELLO: Right. And the Obama administration's argument is that it in the constitution that only the federal government can enforce immigration laws, and that's their argument, correct?
LOPEZ: Yes, one of the surprises during the arguments before the Supreme Court was that that was the main argument by the government that if they didn't emphasize or focus on civil rights issues, on racial profiling, on issues that might be a consequence.
That they come to law such as Arizona 1070. It was the focus on the rights the states have and the authority the federal government has over the states, especially in issues like border security, international relations and such.
COSTELLO: OK, Juan Carlos Lopez, you're going to stick around because that decision too might be coming down. We're thinking maybe either decision could come down in the next 15 minutes.
But Jeffrey Toobin is in there and he can't communicate to us from inside the U.S. Supreme Court. But he's in there. He is in the courtroom. Hopefully he's looking at those justices. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COSTELLO: All right, we do have breaking news to tell you, the Supreme Court has ruled on one of those momentous decisions, that's on Arizona's tough immigration law.
At issue was whether Arizona could protect its own borders or within the constitution, the federal government had the only right to enforce immigration laws.
We understand there has been a decision, 5-3 in favor of the U.S. government. Juan Carlos Lopez is here to explain more. So this is a victory for the Obama administration?
LOPEZ: Well, the devil is in the details, we'll have to see what that ruling says and if it is a complete victory for to the government and their case.
Obviously, this first headline is welcome news to many in the immigrant community and many who are advocating for them and it's probably not good news for who considered that the federal government isn't doing its job and that the states have to intervene and have to do more to protect their own borders.
So as details come along, we'll see. There was a lot of expectation. As I told you, most of the folks that we usually speak with on this issue, were expecting a ruling that would be adverse to the government.
Obviously, this changes the perception. We're going to have to see what the ruling really says. But it's very important moment for this issue of immigration and border security.
As I said, Carol, we're going to have to wait what the details bring, but at least this headline creates a new scenario.
COSTELLO: Let me explain to people what the U.S. Supreme Court was deciding as it applies to this immigration law in Arizona. One, as you've told us, whether states have the right to enforce their own boarders or that that federal government has the only right as states by the U.S. constitution.
The other part of the law, of course, that justices took sharp aim at was the portion of the law that requires police to determine the immigration status of suspects they stop, detained or arrested if reasonable suspicion exist that person is in the country illegally.
The U.S. Supreme Court was supposed to kind of ponder that side of the issue too, unclear yet whether they've done that. But again, we have a partial ruling on Arizona immigration law, 5-3, in favor of the government.
Let's go to David Gergen. David Gergen, what do you make of this? GERGEN: I'm not sure what to make of it at this point. It's a -- it is a central part of this. And Arizona insisted that it could pass its own laws. The federal government had laws on the books, but they were not enforcing, they could pass their own laws.
And the court apparently has said, no, you cannot do that. Those were centralized powers and you can't step in. That is from a point of view of state's rights folks of people who have wanted tougher border enforcement at the state level.
That's a loss, that's a defeat. And whether it says anything to us about how the court is going to come out on health care is a very different matter. I think it does not signal one way or the other anything about health care.
COSTELLO: Brian, I'm talking to my executive producer now, it was a 5-3 decision in favor of the U.S. government, right? So there are nine justices, so one of them may have abstained.
Let's go to John King. I wish we had Jeffrey Toobin out here, but he's inside the court waiting to see if there's a decision on health care as well, but 5-3 in favor of the U.S. government, is that a victory for the president. He must be happy about that.
KING: Well, Carol, our team at the court is live blogging and they say in this decision, that Sections 3, 5 and 6 of the Arizona law, Sections 3, 5 and 6 have been pre-empted.
Section 3 made a crime under state law for an illegal immigrant to fail to apply for a registration document, saying you had to register with the state and say I'm here illegally.
And that Section 3 also made it illegal for them not to carry registration papers if they had been issued so that has been my understanding of this has been pre-empted by the Supreme Court. Section 5 makes it a crime for any illegal immigrant to apply for publicly solicit or performed work within the state border.
Essentially saying if you're an illegal immigrant, you can't get a job in the state of Arizona. That section has also been pre- empted according to our team blogging at the court.
And Section 6 authorized state and local police officers to arrest immigrants without a warrant if the officer had, quote, "probable cause to believe that they have committed a crime that makes them deportable from the United States."
So we have to read the exact details, but the live blogging from out team at the court says those three sections, 3, 5 and 6 have been pre-empted. Parts of it have been upheld. We'll have to see whether those parts --
COSTELLO: I know, but parts of it have been upheld, but that pretty much guts the law, doesn't it?
KING: That's what it seems to do. That is certainly what it seems to do. We'll have to see the provision that were upheld and to see whether they are as -- shall we say, offensive to the activists community.
Those three I just read to you though. Those were thing things that Juan Carlos was saying earlier, there are a lot of people mad at the government.
That the government didn't challenge this as a civil rights issue essentially saying that if you white skin like I do, you're not going to be treated the same as somebody with brown skin can be under the Arizona immigration law.
A lot of the activists thought that was the best legal challenge, but it appears on those key provisions the government has won and we're waiting for more details.
COSTELLO: OK, let's head to the U.S. Supreme Court. Kate Bolduan is standing by there live. Have any more answers for us, Kate?
Do we have Kate? OK, we don't have Kate. I know she's running to the camera because I know she's busy down there. So we'll get to her as soon as we can.
Let's go to Gloria Borger. This sounds like a great big victory for the president.
BORGER: Well, I'm just trying to read our Scotus blog, as John King was reading. I think that we need to -- the devil's in the details here. We really need to see exactly if this is a victory for the president, how big a victory it is for the president.
Look, the central issue here that the court is trying to decide is whether Arizona has encroached disruptively on what has been federal terrain. The big question is, is immigration generally an issue under the federal government's purview or is this a state purview?
And you know, that is also, of course, the argument in the Supreme Court looking at health care reform. I think what we see in Arizona as a law in which they call, it's their policy of attrition through enforcement as they call it.
Which means that they stop people and ask for their papers and deport people who don't have papers, and eventually, people are going to stop coming to the state through attrition because they know that they have a very, very strong law.
COSTELLO: So let me interrupt you for a second, Gloria, because we want to get those details. We want to know exactly what the ruling means, so Kate Bolduan is ready to go. Kate Bolduan, can you fill us in?
KATE BOLDUAN, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Hi, there. I'm sure you guys have the headline that it is a 5-2-3 ruling in favor of the U.S. government with regard to SB 1070, the Arizona immigration law. What I'm seeing here in our first read through, is it appears there were really four issues that the court was considering, four provisions in the Arizona immigration law.
It appears from our read that three of the four, it was found that the Supreme Court justices found in favor of the U.S. government, not the state of Arizona.
Two important parts of this majority opinion that I will read to you real quick, it gives a really pretty clear answer on where they stand on this.
It says, the national government has significant power to regulate immigration. With power comes responsibility and the sound exercise of national power over immigration depends on the nation's needing, its responsibility to basic laws and a political will informed by searching, thoughtful, rational, civic discourse.
And this is also an important aspect. It says, Arizona may have understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigrations while that process continuous.
But the state may not pursue policies that undermine federal laws. So as you can that they're saying at least in large part here that they are agreeing with the government's argument that they made in court.
That the Arizona law while may be well intentioned and while they may be frustrated that this law stepped over the line, that encroached, it conflicted, it competed with, it infringed upon the power that is exclusively that of the federal government over federal immigration policy.
Now one part, and we're reading through this still, of course, but as one part, as one element of this was obviously upheld, kind of leaning in favor at least giving Arizona a bit of a bone here, if you will.
It's obviously -- this is part of the statute and it says that it's not clear at this stage on this record that in practice this element will require state officers to delay the release of detainees for no reason other than to verify their immigration status.
To me and we were reading through this opinion still, to me that means that maybe the most controversial element, the element that requires police check people's immigration status while they're in the course of their other duties.
If they have a reasonable suspicion that they could be in the country illegally, this may allow that practice to continue because they don't see it as infringing upon the federal frame work, which is already illegal immigration policy, a very big ruling here and a very big day for the federal government.
COSTELLO: Pause for just a second, because we understand the sheriff in Arizona, Joe Arpaio is now being interviewed on local television in Arizona. We want to listen to what he has to say about these rulings.
(BEGIN LIVE FEED)
SHERIFF JOE ARPAIO, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA: I think we have the most trained law enforcement office in the country because it's ICE has trained 100 of my deputies, of course, they took that authority away, plus 100 of my officers have been trained five-week course, federal trained. So we are well trained to perform our duties in this manner.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you both for being with us.
(END LIVE FEED)
COSTELLO: OK, so we joined that kind of late, we didn't get much from Joe Arpaio, but as Kate said it appears that the U.S. justices have upheld the part of the Arizona law that allows police to stop people they find suspicious, reasonable suspicions, to ask for immigration status.
Kate, John King, am I reading that right? I know you've been reading the blogs. This is live, breaking coverage so we're getting bits and pieces of information. Is that how you understand it?
BOLDUAN: That is how I understand it, that is says that this provision that relates to while law enforcement officers are in the course of their other duties, if they make another traffic stop, if you're pulled over for any number of laws, if they suspect you have broken a law that's already on the books, they can check your immigration status if there's, quote/unquote, "reasonable suspicion" that this person is in the country illegally.
That was one of the four provisions that was block by the Supreme Court took this issue up. But three of the four provisions have been struck down, if you will.
The Supreme Court has said that the U.S. government is the one who needs to have the power over immigration policy not the state of Arizona.
One big question in my mind going forward is what does this mean for the many other states who have been considering laws similar to Arizona's immigration law.
Many of them have been held up until the Supreme Court ruled on this and so that, of course, leaves some big legal question for those states who have all been watching this unfold very closely.
COSTELLO: All right, Kate Bolduan, thanks so much. For the political implications in this ruling and there are many, I want to turn it over to my colleague, John King. John, take it away.
KING: Carol, as you can see, Kate is at the court. Jeffrey Toobin is at the court. We're going to read every last detail of the big Arizona decision. The Supreme Court also issuing an important campaign finance decision today and a very important ruling about the rights of juveniles who are sentenced for serious crimes and the right to juvenile sentence for serious crimes and their right to send us life in prison, the right to apply for parole a bit later.
But before we threw all of these decisions we're going to take a quick break. We're still waiting for the possibility of a health ruling today. Our coverage will continue in just a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KING: Welcome back to our special coverage. Several important rulings by the United States Supreme Court today. I'm John King at Washington. A ruling in a highly anticipated case, the court has ruled parts of Arizona's controversial immigration law SB 1070 are unconstitutional. But it left in place one provision that many activist and Latino community view as racial profiling by the State of Arizona.
Here is what the court left in place, Section 2B of that law, requires state and local police officers to attempt to determine the immigration status of any individual detained for some other offense if the officer has reason to believe they're in the United States illegally.
The court however threw out provisions making it -- that would have made it a crime, essentially would have required an illegal immigrant to register with the state, would have made it illegal for any immigrant to apply for a job in the state of Arizona and would have authorized state and local police officer to arrest immigrants without a warrant if the person have reason to believe they were subject to deportation.
As we continue our coverage and read through the rulings, important legal decision on state rights versus federal rights also a critical political issues as we approach the November election with the Latino voters will be swing voters in many of the battleground states.
Our chief political analyst Gloria Borger is with us. And Gloria the government won on three out of four big contested issues here.
BORGER: Right.
KING: But on that one, on that one, the court saying essentially let's see how this plays out. If you pull somebody over for a traffic offense, if you arrest them for breaking and entering and the like.
BORGER: Right.
KING: An officer then has the right -- has the right to essentially ask that person if they have reason to believe they're here illegally to prove it, to show documentation.
BORGER: Right.
KING: That one will anger the community. BORGER: Right and -- and during the -- the arguments on this case, it was sort of clear that the justices had some questions about this. Even Sonya Sotomayor, saying wait a minute -- if -- if somebody has done something wrong, I mean this is not just sort of pulling somebody over on the street and stopping them and saying, gee where are your papers.
This is -- if they have been arrested for something, have done something wrong and it seems reasonable to ask, where are your -- where is your driver license and then to ask, are you here illegally, they say that is fine, you can -- you can do that.
But on the larger federal questions of the state versus the federal government, on immigration issues, this is a clear victory for the Obama administration. Because it stated, and I think quite clearly that the state can't pursue policies that undermine federal law on an issue as large as immigration. That it is clearly under the federal purview.
KING: Another critical decision today and again we're still waiting to see if we will get the ruling, the big -- most probably, the most anticipated ruling on the health care law today. We're waiting to find out on whether the court will push that later in to this it's final week in session.
But there is a very important decision in a campaign finance case. It's might seem obscure to you state case for Montana, but it gets back to the giant issue, you are now watching play out in this campaign, this huge Super PAC spending. Unlimited contributions to many organizations there. The state has issued in this case, it's called "American Tradition Partnership versus Bullock, a Montana state law, essentially refusing to hear that case living in place the freedom for money to enter into election.
So Jessica Yellin, if you're still with us. This is something -- the Obama administration has complained repeatedly about the Citizen's United decision saying it allows these huge contributions, it allows secret contributions but the court is signaling here that it's precedents will hold and so if this issue is going to be dealt with it is clear it would have be dealt with by the United States Congress which at the moment has no consensus on this issues.
JESSICA YELLIN, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: That's right, John, Congress had an opportunity to alter Citizens United, sort of hem it in some way and has not taken action on that. It's not an issue that particularly popular with the American people that anybody really seems terribly focused on right now because people have such greater concerns with their own pocket book issues.
But in the big picture, it does shape our politics, who donates, how they donate, who influences the election process, and so over time, maybe Congress will act on these issues, it's hard to know, but it's certainly a momentous decision because effectively the court is saying that corporations can continue to give in to these major outside groups now to state and local elected officials.
KING: Right.
YELLIN: And that makes such a big difference, you know because when you're running for office for, you know, your local mayor, it doesn't take a lot of money, you know, $20,000 or $100,000 could be all it takes to clobber your opponent and -- and really make -- and make you the victor.
So --
(CROSSTALK)
KING: Jess, I'm going to jump in the, forgive me for interrupting, I'm going to jump in for one second. As we told you we have this campaign finance decision today, we have the Arizona immigration law decision today. Another juvenile justice ruling today but we now know that the health care decision will not come out today. The justices have said the remaining decisions from this term will come out on Thursday.
So we will have to wait until Thursday to find out how the justices will rule on the President's signature initiative of his first term that is the Democratic and the Obama health care law. We thought that ruling could possibly come today, but the justices has now say any other outstanding decisions that we don't already have for you this morning will be decided on Thursday.
Mark Preston, I know you're with us, just in terms of the political anticipation of this, we wait for health care, in the meantime, when you look at the campaign finance decision, you look at the Arizona immigration decision, is there a single political verdict from that? Or it's a case by case?
MARK PRESTON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL EDITOR: Well you know I think Republicans and we've seen this from the Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, John, once when the announcement was made regarding the Supreme Court deciding not to really hear the case regarding the Montana decision, he called it a -- a victory for free speech.
And while we call it a -- you know a fight with corporations trying to spend as much money John, it also has to do with unions and quite frankly it has to do with singular individuals that are willing to put up, $5 million, $10 million, $20 million to try to influence the election.
So for Republicans and quite frankly we should note this there are Democrats on the other side who are also deep pocketed trying to influence the elections for the Free Speech Advocates, this is a big victory for them.
For immigration, as we have talked about over the past few minutes, this is kind of a tough -- tough line for Mitt Romney to walk. He was very, very strident when it came to immigration enforcement in the primary, he's starting to lessen off a little bit because the fact is he can't seem as strident and hemming in to the general election.
But as you say, John, we're all waiting until Thursday because that is the big verdict we're waiting for.
KING: And Mark, we should note that Governor Romney, ironically, coincidentally or not will be in the state of Arizona today raising some money in the (inaudible) and well, see what he say about these decisions.
I'm joined on phone now by David Coal, he's a constitutional law professor here in Washington. Sir first here, I want to -- the court has always said they're not political. However, does it surprise you at all that they leave the decision we are waiting for the most until last?
DAVID COLE, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW PROFESSOR: Well, it doesn't surprise me. They may not be political, but they understand drama and so they're holding off until the very last day. It's also the most difficult case, the most important case and they may want the extra few days to, you know, be -- make sure that they're happy with written opinions.
KING: And let's go through what we learned today. The Arizona case was also highly-anticipated, much like the individual mandate part of the health care bill, a signature question about the powers of the federal government versus the powers and the rights of the state governments.
When you see the court in this 5-3 provision, striking down three key provisions of the law, but leaving in place section 2B, that allows a police officer if they pull you over for a traffic offense, if they catch you breaking and entering; as long you're in their custody for some other offense, if they have reason to believe you are in this country illegally to ask for documentation, to ask for proof.
What does that tell you about the court and the line it's trying to draw.
COLE: Well, I think a couple of things. First of all, I think the argument in this case, most people are predicting that they would uphold most of the Arizona law. But based on the questions, that in fact they struck down most of the Arizona law. So it tells you that you can't always predict by oral argument.
Secondly, I think this was almost a total victory for the Obama administration and the federal government. Because what the court says is look, immigration enforcement is a federal matter, it is not a matter for the state. If and when the federal government, Congress or the attorney general, invites cooperation from the states then it's permissible for the state to cooperate. But states can't unilaterally decide that they're going to enforce immigration laws in a way that Congress has chosen not to. So it has struck down the provisions that make various statuses of being in the United States in violation of immigration law and Arizona crimes. Arizona can't make that a crime, Congress can make that a crime, but Congress hasn't made it a crime.
And on the provision that you referred to, the one that was left standing, they didn't uphold it. All they said was it's too early to tell before it's actually implemented whether it's inconsistent with federal law. They said it could be inconsistent with federal law, if it allows them to detain people for any longer than they otherwise would be authorized on under state law. That would be inconsistent.
And they suggested that if it were applied in a way that violated equal protection and answer discrimination provisions. That also might be inconsistent with federal law. So all they said was this was a challenge before the law went into effect, let's see how the state courts interpret it and then we'll decide whether it's consistent to federal law but the rest of the law they struck down.
KING: David Cole is a constitutional scholar at Georgetown. Here in Washington D.C. Sir, I hope you can stay with us, we're going to take a quick break. Again, i you're just joining us, the health care decision from the Supreme Court we are told will not come until Thursday. That is the final day of this year's very important decisions today on the Arizona immigration law. The Montana state campaign finance election that will affect state elections. Our Justice as well.
Our special coverage will continue in just a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KING: I'm John King: in Washington.
It's been a very important morning as the Supreme Court wraps up its term. One headline we should tell you up front, we'll have to wait until Thursday, see you back here same time then, for the ruling on the Obama health care law.
But several other important decisions came out today including a decision which struck down three of the four disputed provisions in the Arizona -- the controversial Arizona immigration law. One other provision was allowed to stay in effect for now although the court's saying it will see how that law in practice works and whether it can be challenged down the road. That, a provision allowing police officers if they stop somebody for some other offense. If they have reasonable doubt to believe that they're an illegal immigrant, to ask for documentation.
The court did not strike that down although it said essentially we'll have to see how it played if, in fact -- if it was, implemented whether or not it inconvenienced people and whether officers went beyond their legal right to holding people. The Arizona attorney general is reacting to the big decision, let's listen.
(BEGIN LIVE FEED)
TOM HORNE, ARIZONA ATTORNEY GENERAL: To be treated as an individual.
KNXV REPORTER: That was going to be my next question. As the top law man in our state, what do you do to make sure that racial profiling isn't happening out there? Because the possibility is inherent in this law. HORNE: Well, we're represented on post that does the training of police officers. I designate member of their board and they've been doing training already to make sure that they know that they must not engage in racial profiling.
KNXV REPORTER: And for the Hispanic community out there, who lives legal, who lives in our state that doesn't want to feel like they're being harassed, what would you tell them?
HORNE: That as long as there's no racial profiling, they shouldn't be and we're doing everything we can to prevent it. We are as much -- it's as important to us to (inaudible) their rights -- not to have their constitutional rights violated as it is to be sure that enforce the law with respect to illegal immigration.
KNXV REPORTER: Does this impact just our state? Or does this impact the entire country?
HORNE: A lot of states have been copying us, so for those three minor provisions that we lost, they can't copy that, but they can copy the first one, and there are a number of provisions in the law that haven't been challenged that are in effect. For example, prohibiting sanctuary cities and other important provisions of the law.
KNXV REPORTER: Is this about the police on the street, is this about sending a message to Washington that you guys want more done on the immigration issue from the federal level?
HORNE: Well, we definitely need more done from the federal level. The big issue is the border. We have two sections on our border, the Yuma section on the west and the Tucson section on the east. In the Yuma Section, President Bush put in a lot of extra resources and reduced the illegal immigration there by 94 percents, from hundreds of thousands to 7,500 last year.
In the Tucson sector, hundreds of thousands have crossed last year illegally. And we need the Obama administration to do in the Tucson sector what the Bush administration did to the Yuma sector then we can get control of our border and that would be a long way toward solving our problems.
KNXV REPORTER: So you're hoping that this sends a message to the feds that not only are we frustrated, but we're going to do -- we need to do on a state level to fight back.
HORNE: Absolutely.
KNXV REPORTER: Arizona attorney general Tom Horne. Thank you so much. Pleasure talking with you.
HORNE: Thank you. Same with you.
what the bush administration did in the Yuma sector. That would
(END LIVE FEED)
KING: That's one of our Arizona affiliates, KNXV, interviewing the attorney general of Arizona right there.
We all now have reaction as well the governor Jan Brewer, who of course signed SB 1070 into the law. Gloria Borger is still with me. And Gloria I want to have you join the conversation. I have been reading over this decision and you quickly get to the politics of this.
While the federal government won on several key provisions here in this case, Governor Brewer is for now declaring victory.
BORGER: Yes, she declares victory. She just sent out a statement John and she said that the Supreme Court upheld what she calls the heart of SB 1070.
And she also says in her statement that law enforcement will be held accountable should this statute be misused in a fashion that violates an individual's civil rights. And she also says that the law will not be used in any way, so as to be seen as racial profiling.
I think, John, obviously she's claiming victory here, on this part of the law that's very important to her state, she calls it the heart of the law. but I think it's also important to note and David Cole was getting at this when you were interviewing him before. And that is that the Supreme Court said very clearly that their opinion, quote, does not foreclose other pre-emption and constitutional challenges to the law as interpreted and applied after it goes into effect.
In other words, they're saying that this part of the law which they did uphold could still be challenged in a lower court. And it also -- I would say limited the authority of what Jan Brewer's police officers can do because they can stop and briefly detain somebody, but they cannot hold somebody unless they contact federal officials. So it does uphold what she's saying, but this doesn't preclude more legal challenges to that part of the law which she calls the heart of SB 1070.
KING: Essentially the court saying now Arizona can implement those provisions of the law and as it's implemented you have example, some people could challenge it whether the issue be racial profiling. Whether the issue be holding somebody beyond the authority of the police officer's reasonable time after you're detained.
BORGER: But you still have to check with federal immigration agents, though, so there is that sort of federal hand overseeing this.
KING: As you get a reflection here, the federal government winning on most of the counts of the Arizona immigration law but state officials claiming a victory for the hotly disputed and highly controversial political law SB 1070.
Our special coverage of today's Supreme Court decisions will continue in just a moment.
And remember one thing, see you back here Thursday morning. The health care decision will be issued on the final day of this year's term.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KING: Welcome back to our breaking news coverage.
Several important decisions by the United States Supreme Court today. I'm John King in Washington. I want to bring quickly into the conversation, Tom Horne, he's the Republican Attorney General of the state of the Arizona. Our senior legal analyst, Jeffrey Toobin. He's also available, I believe, outside the Supreme Court.
Mr. Attorney General, the court struck down three key provisions of SB 1070, the Arizona immigration law on areas where it said that the state was trying to police federal immigration issues. Left in place, but with a question mark, section 2B which requires state officials to attempt to determine the question the immigration status of any individual stopped or detained. If the officer reasonably suspects the person is in the United States illegally.
You take that as a victory. But the court pretty clear it wants to see how it was implemented and perhaps there could be challenges down the road.
HORNE: Yes, well, we've always know. This was what they call a (inaudible) challenge which - their challenging the language. You can always have a challenge later on so we've always known that. But I think it's a big win because this was the big issue which is the right -- the requirement that a police officer who legally stops or arrests someone and has reasonable suspicion a person is here illegally must check with ICE, it doesn't have the discretion, we must check.
That was the big issue that dominated oral argument. It was pretty clear from oral argument that we weren't going to win that one and I have been predicting we would win that one, the other three there was very little discussion in oral arguments so it was kind or hard to predict. But the other three I think are minor compared to the big controversial issue which was the requirement that police officers who lawfully stop or arrest someone and have reasonable suspicion the person's here illegally must check with ICE as to the status of that person.
KING: What message do the court said to you in terms of -- essentially that it better be reasonable and it better not keep somebody for too much time.
HORNE: Yes. Well, I think the record shows that these checks can be done quickly and of course the big issue for us is we want to make sure there's no racial profiling. The statute prohibits racial profiling. And in my opinion our duty to protect the constitutional rights of people who are not here legally, but who might be stopped because of their race, it's as important for us to protect their constitutional rights as it is for us to enforce the law. So we have been training people to be sure that they do not do racial profiling.
KING: And is Jeffrey Toobin with us outside the court? Jeff, please join the conversation and help me, is your interpretation of what the court said consistent with what hearing from the Attorney General? And if you have a question yourself about how Arizona goes forward.
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, I think he's right, that this was what's known as a facial challenge which means the federal government asserted that these laws were unconstitutional in all circumstances. As you have been discussing, three of the four provisions were found to be unconstitutional, were found to be a violation of the federal government's prerogatives when it comes to immigration.
However the most controversial part of the law has been upheld. The so-called show us your papers provision has been upheld. And now we will see how Arizona administers that. A lot of people have raised questions about civil liberties when that comes due. About whether that will involve a violation of the rights of the people who are stopped.
But those case will have to wait, if there are any cases. So those would be as applied challenges. I think it is genuinely a mixed and both sides can take solace from what the court did here.
KING: And Attorney General Horne, many states tried copy cat Laws. How many in the states are you aware of the passed similar laws have that particular provision.
HORNE: Are you asking me or Mr. Toobin?
KING: Yes, sir, when states took Arizona as a model -- how many of them -- Alabama for example. Does this have a section like 2B of your law?
HORNE: I believe they do. Of course, the Alabama law went a lot further than our laws did actually. They have additional provisions that we don't have. I think the only effect on other states copying our law is the three provisions that were struck down. These issues are analyzed one at a time and the fact that those provisions are struck down doesn't affect -- there are a number of provisions in our law that weren't at issue that are in effect right now. Such as important provisions such as prohibiting sanctuary cities.
KING: But what Jeff Toobin just described is the show me your papers provision as we speak now that the court has ruled, as we speak now, are Arizona state and local police officers now enforcing that provision as of today?
HORNE: Well, I think they will, as of today or tomorrow. I don't know if they will today but certainly by tomorrow. They'll know that this law has been upheld and that they're able to do that. And they've been trained, as I say, to avoid racial profiling even if it weren't a legal concern, it would be a moral concern. We don't think it's - it's the American way to treat people as individuals and not let their race influence anything at all that they do. I think that's a very, very important part of all of our constitutional rights. So we want to do everything we can to make sure that nobody engages in any racial profiling. KING: Tom Horne is the republican attorney general of the state of Arizona. An important day for your state, sir, and we appreciate your time and your insights. I'm sure you know the country and, perhaps, the world will be watching as we implement this law going forward.
