Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

America Divided After Supreme Court Overturns Roe V. Wade; Supreme Court Says, School District Cannot Prohibit Football Coach's Prayers on Field After Game; Russia Rains Missiles on Ukraine Capitol of Kyiv. Aired 10-10:30a ET

Aired June 27, 2022 - 10:00   ET

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

[10:00:00]

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR: A good Monday morning to you. I'm Jim Sciutto.

POPPY HARLOW, CNN ANCHOR: And I'm Poppy Harlow. We're glad you're with us today.

Right now, we are closely monitoring the Supreme Court where the justices are set to release new opinions this hour. There are still some key opinions on religious freedom, the environment and immigration that we're watching for. As soon as they come, we'll bring them to you right here.

Meantime this morning, though, millions of Americans are waking up to a new reality, one in which a constitutionally protected right for half a century has been erased. At least ten states have effectively banned abortion since Friday's Supreme Court ruling. And in total, 26 states have laws indicated they are headed exactly in that direction.

SCIUTTO: It's all part of a case that could set precedent to strip millions more of freedoms they've grown to have and grown used to. This opinion on Friday, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote, in part, that the justices, quote, should reconsider all of this court's substantive due process precedents, as they're known, include Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. This sets up the stage for the Supreme Court to overturn past rulings which guarantee right to same-sex relationships and marriage as well as access to contraception, interracial marriage as well.

Let's begin this morning with CNN Justice Correspondent Jessica Schneider. Jessica, the court has already made some interesting calls this morning in other cases, including ones they chose not to take up. What have we learned so far?

JESSICA SCHNEIDER, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, a flurry of activity as we're ending out the term, guys. So, the Supreme Court just a while ago issuing orders. These are decisions on which cases they will and won't take next term. And, notably, the court has decided not to take a case that would have revisited the standard for libel. Since 1964, New York Times versus Sullivan, that created a higher bar for public figures to win in a libel suit. They had to prove actual malice. So, they are not taking that case next term.

And we are awaiting some big decisions on religious liberties, immigration, the power of the EPA when it comes to climate change. So, checking on all that now and we'll come back with you guys in a few minutes.

HARLOW: Okay, Jessica Schneider, thank you very much.

Joining us is now Caroline Kitchener, a national reporter focused on the politics of abortion for The Washington Post Caroline, it's good to have you. Thank you very much.

You wrote an article last week that has really had everyone talking. And I think what's important about it, and one of the reasons we wanted to talk to you is because you profile people like Brooke Alexander, an 18-year-old Texas mother of twin girls who considered an abortion two days before Texas' six-week ban took effect last fall. What you were focused on in your reporting are the real-life implications of these laws now in effect in at least ten states.

CAROLINE KITCHENER, NATIONAL POLITICAL REPORTER, THE WASHINGTON POST: Yes. I wanted to focus on Brooke, who is 18 and decided not to have an abortion in part because of the Texas law and now has twins. Because I think Texas, which essentially banned most abortions back in September, really offers a preview for what's to come. I mean, that happened ten months ago.

So, now both women who were not able to get out of state, they're starting to have their babies and we're able to see what does that look like when you are pushed into parenthood in the way Brooke was.

SCIUTTO: Caroline, can you describe how difficult a decision it was for her and for other mothers facing this. Because one thing I think that in this debate that folks imagine that people are either fans or not fans of Roe v. Wade, and I think that's such a simplification of the enormous emotions and complicated feelings that go into this for mothers, including young mothers like this one, she's just 18 years old, who make decisions or at least had the freedom until Friday to make these decisions nationally.

KITCHENER: I think that's such a good point. It's really hard to talk to Brooke about this law. She really struggles to think about what it means for her life and for the life of women across this country. She identifies as pro-choice, but at the same time she is talking to me about this looking down at her babies who she loves and who now she can't imagine her life without.

Now, on the other hand, she's very aware of all the things that she lost. She was in school and she had to drop out and her life would have looked very different and she's very aware of that.

SCIUTTO: Caroline Kitchener, thanks so much to you, reporting. We'll continue to stay on it as we judge the effects of this ruling.

KITCHENER: Thanks so much. SCIUTTO: And we do have this breaking news just into CNN. The Supreme Court has just issued another consequential opinion, this one in a case known as Kennedy versus the Bremerton School District. This regards, as you may have seen the circumstances of this, a quiet prayer by a public school employee, a football coach in this case, whether that's protected by the First Amendment.

[10:05:03]

HARLOW: That's right. Our Justice Correspondent Jessica Schneider is right back with us now.

You've read through or are starting to read through the opinion. This is so key because this is a ruling that really tested the boundaries of three different First Amendment rights. How did the justices come down?

SCHNEIDER: Yes. So, Poppy, the First Amendment -- or, I'm sorry, the court here saying that the First Amendment guaranteed that this coach could, in fact, pray on the 50-yard line after games. So, the Supreme Court saying here in a 6-3 opinion that this high school out of Washington State violated both the free speech of this coach and also the free exercise clause when they suspended him after he wouldn't stop praying on the 50-yard line.

This school argued that it violated their school policies, that they were worried about coercion of students, and they were also worried about violating the endorsement clause of the Constitution saying that the government can't endorse religion. They said, by continuing to allow the coach to pray on the 50-yard line, they were in jeopardy of violating that clause. So, they suspended the coach and that's what set off this litigation that for years this coach has gone through the lower courts that all ruled against him.

But today, the Supreme Court ruling in favor of the coach here, saying that he should have been allowed to pray on the 50-yard line. It was something that the facts were somewhat disputed here. The school had said that they had offered him alternate accommodations to maybe pray in an area that wasn't so public-facing, because the problem, the school argued, was when the coach went to the 50-yard line, some of the students, some of the players, they felt inclined to follow him. Whether or not that amounted to coercion or not, it was this public airing of this coach's religious preferences that the school was most concerned about, but now the court reiterating that this was, in fact, personal speech from the coach, and he had every right to do it on the 50-yard line.

However, Jim and Poppy, this is really amounting to a sea change in what we've seen from the court's precedent here. Back in the 1960s, that the court said that public officials couldn't mandate that students pray in schools. And then as recently at 2000, it actually invalidated a policy at a school that had a prayer over the loudspeaker before sporting events.

So, the court not exactly rolling that back but really going a step that we haven't seen from this court, saying that private prayer in the public view of students and others at football games at a school on school grounds is okay here.

So, again, we've seen this court, this conservative -- the solidly conservative court rule repeatedly on the side of religion, and that's what we're seeing here again today with this court ruling for this high school football coach and his rights to pray on the 50-yard line, guys.

SCIUTTO: Three days of Supreme Court decisions, Thursday, Friday, and now today, three consequential decisions. CNN Chief -- thanks so much, Jessica Schneider.

We're joined now by CNN Chief Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin, CNN Legal Analyst and Supreme Court Biographer Joan Biskupic.

Jeffrey, let me begin with you, because I want to help people at home digest this, because -- and I wonder if we should couple this with the earlier decision regarding Maine and allowing state funds to go to religious schools here. Is the Supreme Court and the conservative majority once again expanding in the simplest terms religious freedom and taking away restrictions on public funding, public support for religious activities and narrowing that wall, that division between church and state?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: Definitely. I mean, there are two religion clauses in the First Amendment. There's the establishment clause, which says Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion. Basically, we can't have the government mandating religion. We also have the free exercise clause, which says individuals have to have the freedom to exercise their religion.

What's going on in all these cases is that the conservatives on the court are shrinking the establishment clause and expanding the free exercise clause, because those two clauses, they're sometimes in tension with one another, as in this case because the school district in this case said, look, you know, this football coach in a position of authority is effectively showing that the football team has a state religion. But what the coach said is, no, no, no, this has nothing to do with the government or the school mandating religion, this is my free exercise of religion.

Same thing happened in the Maine case. In the Maine case, the people complaining about the law said, look, giving money to parochial schools is a mandating of an establishment of a state religion.

[10:10:03]

The school said, no, no, no, you are penalizing us for being religious. You are penalizing us for our free exercise. So, in both cases, free exercise won over establishment, and that's happening in case after case.

HARLOW: Big free exercise, small establishment, it's clear from this court.

Joan, let me read you part of Justice Gorsuch's majority opinion, quote, the only meaningful justification the government offered for its reprisal rested on a mistaken view that it had a duty to fair it out and suppress religious observances even as it allows comparable, secular speech.

The broader question beyond Coach Kennedy is, what does this mean for opening the door to more prayer in schools? I mean, is this a complete reversal of the '92 decision of Lee versus Weisman? Is it all different now?

JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN LEGAL ANALYST AND SUPREME COURT BIOGRAPHER: Well, it certainly, Poppy, calls into question everything back to 1962 when the court first said that schools could not require prayer, you know, in schools. This is part of such a larger package of this court, and notice it was 6-3. This is the conservative supermajority. Chief Justice John Roberts was with Neil Gorsuch 100 percent here.

It's part of the pattern that includes not just what they did in Maine, but just two years ago when they broadened the exemptions for religious believers under the Affordable Care Act's contraceptive mandate, it's part of the pattern that included allowing religious prayers to be said at public council meetings.

This implicates so many cases going back, as I say, to 1962, and not just Lee versus Weisman, the case you just mentioned in 1992, in which the court struck down prayer at graduations, where students would feel compelled to be at their own graduation, coerced to hear a religious speaker.

But, you know, it was just, I think, about 2000 where the court actually said that you couldn't have students reading prayer before football games over a loudspeaker because the school controlled the loudspeakers. The public school in this case did control the field. Coach Kennedy was someone who was a school official, even though obviously he's cast right now by this majority as saying he was acting privately. But this is a sea change on religion that follows a pattern of conservative justices who believe that religious -- conservative religion is under siege

SCIUTTO: Let me just ask you this then, because folks at home, as with abortion, as with the gun decision, there are going to be people listening right now who have a different view. Some see it as a good result, some as a bad result.

But, Jeffrey Toobin, a question for you, there were multiple precedents prior to this that the limited the ability of public officials to bring prayer into schools and their public duties. There were multiple precedents, as you know, regarding Roe v. Wade, and other cases with the right to privacy. Is precedent dead on the court, stare decisis? I mean, we heard every justice when they were asked repeatedly and talk about respect for precedent. Are we seeing that eroded here?

TOOBIN: Yes. I mean, we are seeing the influence of the three Trump justices. I mean, you know, as the three dissenters said in the Dobbs, the abortion case last week, the only thing that's changed is the membership of the court. There is no other change but who's on the court, the fact that Amy Coney Barrett is there and not Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the fact that Brett Kavanaugh is there and not Anthony Kennedy. I mean, that has changed the dynamics in the court.

And this is not like Dobbs, where they were explicitly overruling a previous case, Roe v. Wade, but this is a case where they are moving the law incrementally in a very clear direction to allow more state involvement with religion. You know, it can be with regard to prayer in schools, it can be in regard to money going to religious organizations, or it can be exempting religious organizations from government mandates, like in the hobby lobby case about contraception.

All of that is part of a package, and that's what Donald Trump promised he would deliver to the Supreme Court, and that is precisely when he did deliver at the Supreme Court.

HARLOW: Jeffrey Toobin, thank you. Joan Biskupic, don't go far. It's only 10:14 A.M., so more major opinions could come in just moments. Jim?

SCIUTTO: As we said this morning, we're waking up to a country markedly changed. Some will welcome it, some will not, but it is changed.

Coming up next, President Biden and other G7 leaders hear fresh pleas for help from Ukraine as Russia makes real advances in the east. We're going to be live near the frontlines, coming up.

[10:15:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCIUTTO: New this morning, as source tells CNN that in the coming days the U.S. is planning to announce it has purchased an advanced medium to long-range surface-to-air missile defense system for Ukraine. It's kind of the thing they've been asking for for some time. The need is clear in Ukraine, which President Volodymyr Zelenskyy emphasized today to G7 leaders.

Sunday, the capital of Kyiv saw a fresh round of missile strikes that killed at least one person, injured at least six, including a seven- year-old girl. Russia dropping missiles all around the country there.

HARLOW: And Russian forces made significant advances in Eastern Ukraine, taking the city Severodonetsk and bombarding the Donbas region.

Our Phil Black is in Kramatorsk, Ukraine, near the frontlines.

[10:20:04]

What can you tell us from the ground, Phil?

PHIL BLACK, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Poppy, Jim, good morning. What you see here on the ground is that this remaining stretch of the Donbas that Russia doesn't control, well, it is getting smaller and that is because Russian forces are making gains. And they are making gains from the east, the south, and the north as well as they move to encircle what remains of this pocket of Ukrainian- controlled territory.

These gains are incremental. They are slow, sometimes very slow. But over time they're adding up and they are changing realities on the ground. For example, along the northern front, in the city of Slovyansk, we saw this morning clear evidence that Russia's rockets are now in easy range of that city because they fell over its residential area through the night. And this morning, we're at an apartment bloc where at least one person was killed.

And along the southern edge this morning, at Bakhmut, another key city, we saw rows of homes that had been shelled by Russian forces over several nights now. The point is the Russians forces are getting closer along both of those fronts.

And in the east, as you touched on, Severodonetsk is now completely in Russianhands, which means the fight moves in the east, just across a river to its sister city of Lysychansk. That is where Russia is now trying to move around and cut off the Ukrainian defenders there, cut off their resupply routes and cut off their potential evacuation routes as well.

All of this means it is a very grim time for Ukrainian forces in this phase of the war because it points to an undeniable reality. At this time, the fight here in the east is going Russia's way. Jim, Poppy?

SCIUTTO: They're real ground, enormous losses as well for the Ukrainians and Russian forces. Phil Black, thanks so much.

In Germany right now, President Biden and G7 leaders are discussing their next moves against Russian President Vladimir Putin after a series of Russian missile strikes hit Ukraine's capital of Kyiv on Sunday. Earlier, the Ukrainian president, Zelenskyy, addressed the group called for fresh sanctions against Russia as well as more military aid for Ukrainian forces trying to regain control in the east.

Here with me now to discuss the big picture, David Sanger, he's a New York Times correspondent, CNN Political and National Security Analyst. David, good to have you.

As we were waiting to come on, I see that Brittney Griner's detention has been extended for six months now in Russia. Her new trial will start Friday. I mean, that's quite a move by Russian authorities. As you know, the Russian judicial system does not move independently of the Kremlin. I mean, is Russia, in effect, taking an American hostage as a pressure point?

DAVID SANGER, CNN POLITICAL AND NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: The Russians have been using hostages, American hostages here for some time, Jim. And I think that the Russians feel as if we're taking economic hostages in the fact that they just had a default on their debt, not because they ran out of money, but instead because they couldn't pay in dollars, it's been blocked. It tells you that we've moved to a new phase right now where each side is trying a bit of attrition on the other. But as you referred in that report, a lot of the momentum is now moving back to the Russians. SCIUTTO: On the ground there, I wonder economically here, because one of the ironies is Russia's oil revenues has actually increased, not decreased, in part because the price of oil has been going up. And, by the way, China and India are still buy a lot of Russian oil even more.

There is a move now to cap or at least try to cap the prices at which Russia can sell its oil, maybe by influence transportation networks. I mean, how would the west pull that off?

SANGER: It's pretty complicated. And the way they would pull it off, Jim, is by basically controlling the amount of oil that can go through western ports, the amount of oil that could be insured by western groups and so forth. So, in other words, they would impose a price cap that way.

But in a global market for oil, it's going to be a little bit difficult to basically segregate out Russian oil from every other kind. And as you point out, the big purchasers here are China and India. And until the U.S. gets them on board on this issue, I think it's going to be very difficult to really make a big dent in the Russian revenue.

SCIUTTO: You write in your latest piece for The New York Times that Mr. Biden must prepare his allies for a grinding conflict, a returning to the long twilight struggle that President John F. Kennedy talked about during the cold war amid shocks in the food and energy markets, inflation on a scale few imagined six months ago.

It's similar to what I've been hear from European diplomats that they see Russia not only digging in for a long and bloody military conflict on the battlefield in the east but a global economic one, that Russia doesn't care if it sparks a famine in Africa. It certainly doesn't care if gas prices stay high here in the U.S.

[10:25:01]

I mean, my question is, as we follow events in Madrid this week, NATO, is the alliance, is the west prepared for this, to stick it out?

SANGER: This is the big question. The last time that the president went out and met the allies, it was late March. He was in a very different situation. The Russians were in retreat. The shock of the invasion had led everybody to move in on the sanctions very quickly. Now, he's in the position of trying to get everybody ready for the long haul here. And that's going to get much more difficult, particularly as winter comes and the Russians begin to wield their greatest weapon of all, which is gas exports that keep Germany and Italy and other countries warm.

SCIUTTO: Final question. So, we have G7 going on now in Germany. In Madrid, we're going to have the NATO summit. What substantive deliverable outcome of this summit do you believe makes a difference? I mean, they're sending some weapons systems, they are making very public announcements about sticking this out, they're attempting further sanctions. But what's the takeaway that you think would make a difference? SANGER: Well, I think the one sanction that really is going to hurt the Russians over the long-term are the export controls of semiconductors and other components that they need for their military and that they need to be able to export military gear, a big export for the Russians. Eventually, that will hit consumer goods as well. When you can't replace your iPhone in Russia, that will get people's attention.

I think the second big one is if, in fact, they can deliver in sufficient numbers these air interceptors missiles that would reduce the kind of attacks that you saw the Russians conduct over the weekend, because if the Russians can reach Kyiv at any moment using long-range missiles, then this war can take place anywhere in the country.

SCIUTTO: Yes. I saw that Russians can now be manufactured without airbags again, in part, because they don't have the chips and other supplies to do it. This has real effects for the Russian consumer.

David Sanger, good to have you on.

SANGER: Always good to be with you.

HARLOW: Still ahead, up next, how the conservative Supreme Court majority is creating a new reality for millions of Americans.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:30:00]