Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Supreme Court Limits EPA's Ability to Regulate Power Plants; Biden Touts Significant Progress Made During NATO Summit; January 6 Committee Subpoenas Trump White House Counsel Pat Cipollone. Aired 10:30-11a ET

Aired June 30, 2022 - 10:30   ET

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

[10:30:00]

DAVID CHALIAN, CNN POLITICAL DIRECTOR: I don't think he made that clear at all today.

POPPY HARLOW, CNN ANCHOR: That's a great point. Don't go anywhere. We have more of this breaking news on the other side.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARLOW: Welcome back to our special live coverage covering the breaking news just out of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court just curbed the EPA's ability broadly and significantly to regulate carbon emissions from existing power plants.

This is a major defeat for the Biden administration, especially in the fight against climate change. It's also a big decision when it comes to the power of the administrative agencies to work.

Jessica Schneider is with us now from the Supreme Court.

[10:35:00]

Steve Vladeck is here as well.

So, Jess, let me get to you with the big-picture ruling here as it pertains to the impact of what the EPA now can't do in terms of regulating on climate change, and then, Steve, we'll get to the broad picture here for the administrative state. Jess?

JESSICA SCHNEIDER, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, it's interesting because the chief justice in writing this opinion, one thing he said was that, you know, it seems a sensible solution that the EPA might try to regulate coal emissions because this is the crisis of the day, as the chief justice puts it. However, even though he recognizes that it is such a pressing issue for the EPA, this court then saying it is not plausible that Congress gave EPA the authority to adopt on its own such a regulatory scheme, a decision of such magnitude rests with Congress.

So, we've talked about this, the Supreme Court resting control from agencies, something that this conservative majority has long sought to do, we've already seen them do it multiple times this term when it comes to the power of the CDC and also OSHA with COVID restrictions.

This court now going a big step further, saying that the EPA with this particular regulatory scheme they were trying to impose on power plants, it goes way too far and that a scheme like this needs to really be determined by Congress. But we know that with the stalemates in Congress, that's really not going to go anywhere.

And so the court here hampering the EPA's ability but also casting larger questions here, talking about the major questions doctrine, and that when such broad implications politically and with economics are at play, that maybe agencies don't have the power to regulate with broad authority.

So, this will probably -- in addition to limiting the EPA's abilities here, this will probably also spur a lot more litigation to other agencies and exactly what they can do since the court really casting this big question here, how powerful are agencies, the court here saying with the EPA in this particular scheme, not powerful enough.

HARLOW: And it's just notable that some of the biggest public utility companies in the country were on the side of the EPA and the Justice Department here, PG&E, Consolidated Edison.

Steve Vladeck, to you, for the big question that Jessica put out there, which is exactly the right one, is what is a major question now? And the major questions doctrine has now three times this term tied the hands of agencies, like OSHA from being able to have a vaccine mandate, like the CDC from being to be able to have an eviction moratorium and now from the EPA to do things to mitigate climate change. Is this -- what isn't a big question? I mean, going forward, looking to next term, does the major questions doctrine now dictate what agencies can and can't do?

STEVE VLADECK, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Poppy, the answer is yes, and I think it's not an overstatement to suggest that this is a cataclysm for the modern administrative state, not necessarily because every question is a major question but because that can be litigated in every single case.

You know, the U.S. Department of Agriculture creates inspection standards for food plants. Is that a major question? We might not think so. But if we're talking about beef, how many Americans consume beef. What a major question is, Poppy, is what a judge says it is. And that opens the door for not just the Supreme Court but for lower court judges now to turn around and look at every single feature of federal administrative regulation and say, oh, this delegation is not sufficiently specific because this is a major question.

Poppy, knowing not only as Jessica says that there's gridlock in Congress but knowing that even an effective, functioning in Congress would never have time to address all of these iterative questions, particularly (INAUDIBLE) requirements in every field.

HARLOW: So, what the Congress would have to do, so everyone understands, Steve, here, to prevent courts from invoking the major questions doctrine to tie an agency's hand to make critical decision is that Congress would have to delegate power to an agency on any decision of vast economic and political significance very specifically, very clearly in its language. Otherwise, it will be able now to be challenged on a major questions doctrine ground that we know that this court has made clear it will uphold.

VLADECK: Right. So, we, Congress, intend for the EPA to have the power to set the following kinds of limits as applied to the following kinds of emitters, right? I mean, that's pretty specific. Now, folks at home might say that doesn't sound like a big deal. Fine. Multiply that by the thousands and thousands of agencies setting thousands and thousands of different rules, right, on the ground for every single facet of our bureaucratic state.

Now, maybe, Poppy, that's the goal. Maybe the idea is, actually, we just don't want Congress doing this at all. We'd rather these issues not be regulated by the federal government.

[10:40:02]

That's the real takeaway here, that unless we actually think Congress has the wherewithal and the ability to regulate on such a micro level, the end result is actually deregulation, not better delegation of regulation.

HARLOW: Steve Vladeck, thanks so much for helping us understand it. Jessica Schneider, to you, not only for today but all term, for your expertise on these critical cases, thanks very, very much. Jim?

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR: Still ahead this hour, live from Madrid, President Biden wraps up a consequential two days here along NATO allies, ending those meetings with a defense of U.S. leadership, a celebration of NATO's coming expansion and a message to the American people. We're going to be joined, coming up, by the U.S. permanent representative to NATO right after this break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCIUTTO: Welcome back. I'm Jim Sciutto in Madrid.

Right now, the NATO summit wrapping up here in Spain. And just before we left, President Biden held a press conference making news on a number of issues, driving home the point that, in his view, Putin's war has only strengthened the NATO alliance.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN, U.S. PRESIDENT: Putin thought he could break the transatlantic alliance. He tried to weaken us. He expected our resolve to fracture. But he's getting exactly what he did not want. He wanted the Finlandization of NATO. He got the NATOization of Finland.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: Joining me now, U.S. Permanent Representative to NATO, Ambassador Julianne Smith. Ambassador, thanks so much for taking the time this morning. JULIANNE SMITH, U.S. PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE TO NATO: Thank you.

SCIUTTO: First, I wonder if you can describe the importance of the forces being moved closer to NATO's border with Russia. Why now? And does the alliance fear that Russia poses a direct threat not just to Ukraine but to members of the NATO alliance, a direct threat to invade as it invaded Ukraine?

SMITH: Well, After Russia went into Ukraine on February 24th, all the allies came together and asked themselves what more they could do for the eastern flank. And in those couple of weeks right after February 24th, several allies moved troops into Eastern Europe.

The question that was before leaders today at the summit and yesterday was what more should NATO allies do in the eastern flank above and beyond what's already there? The alliance already has eight battalions in eight separate nations on the eastern flank, and today, the alliance took steps to enhance those forces, to ensure that those countries feel secure.

Which brings us to our second question about how the alliance is looking at Russia right now, one of the things that we did here in Madrid is we released a new strategic concept. That's kind of the alliance's mission statement. And in it, the allies talk about Russia as a threat to the alliance.

SCIUTTO: Yes. They also -- you mentioned the strategic concept. For the first time, it mentions China. I wonder, does NATO, does the U.S. in that statement view China as a threat on par with Russia, a threat to the alliance's security?

SMITH: So, the number one issue that the allies are focused on at the moment is obviously Russia, given the war in Ukraine. That's front and center. And that appears in the strategic concept first. But as you noted, for the first time in NATO's history, the allies added China to the strategic concept.

That's significant because all the allies now are agreed that China also poses a challenge to the alliance, and that not only do we have to look at what China is doing in and around Europe but we also have to take a look at a China-Russia relationship in particular and their no-limits partnership as well.

SCIUTTO: The reports from the frontlines in Eastern Ukraine from my colleagues at CNN and others are just brutal. The losses for Ukrainian forces immense, Russia has been gaining territory, including some key cities in the area. Is Ukraine losing the war in the east right now?

SMITH: I think the allies came together and heard directly from President Zelenskyy yesterday morning, and they all were in agreement that we have to double down on our assistance to Ukraine in this moment. The allies have been providing a remarkable level of security assistance. And what you're going to see in the days and weeks ahead is even more assistance moving into Ukraine, both security assistance and also economic and humanitarian assistance as well. So, allies are united in that view, and you could feel that around the table today in the allies' determination to support Ukraine in this moment.

SCIUTTO: I wonder if you can clear something up. Because earlier in the week, the NATO secretary-general said that some 300,000 NATO forces would be, in his words, put on high alert.

[10:50:00]

Since then, we're told by officials that that's really an aspirational plan, perhaps next year, that that won't happen today, and there's some question as to whether they will actually be on high alert. What is the new step? Can you clarify the posture of those NATO forces and the number?

SMITH: Sure. Here's the story on that. Right now, NATO has about 40,000 troops on high alert as part of something called the NATO response force. That force can move in about 15 days. We keep that in reserve for a variety of crises or conflicts or emergencies that could pop up. What the alliance has decided is that they want to have a bigger pool of forces at the ready. Allies have committed to having 300,000 forces on standby, pre-assigned for certain missions in and around NATO's area of operation.

So, by the end of this year, the idea is the alliance would have a pool of 300,000 forces from which it could draw in a crisis.

SCIUTTO: And draw quickly? When you say on standby, does that mean ready to go as those 40,000 are today?

SMITH: Yes, absolutely. So, what usually happens in the face of a crisis is that the alliance goes around and looks for countries that can contribute forces to a new mission. In this case, these forces will be pre-assigned and ready to be deployed on just a few days' notice.

SCIUTTO: Understood. Ambassador Julianne Smith, you've had a busy few days here, I know. Thanks so much for taking the time for us.

SMITH: Thank you.

SCIUTTO: Poppy?

HARLOW: All right. Jim, thank you.

Still ahead, the January 6th committee has subpoenaed former White House Counsel Pat Cipollone, underscoring their need for his testimony in their investigation. How he might respond to that subpoena is next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:55:00]

HARLOW: The January 6th committee has now subpoenaed former Trump White House Counsel Pat Cipollone a day after that testimony from former White House Aide Cassidy Hutchinson. Cipollone was central to much of her key testimony on Tuesday. She detailed how concerned Cipollone was about the legal liabilities before and during the insurrection. Last night, the select committee's vice chair, Congresswoman Liz Cheney, praised Hutchinson for speaking up. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. LIZ CHENEY (R-WY): Her superiors, men many years older, a number of them are hiding behind executive privilege, anonymity and intimidation. But her bravery and patriotism yesterday were awesome to behold.

And let me also say this to the little girls and to the young women who are watching tonight. These days, for the most part, men are running the world, and it is really not going that well.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARLOW: Let's bring in our Katelyn Polantz. She elicited a laugh from the crowd there. But, I mean, the truth is that Hutchinson's testimony was so important that this committee has subpoenaed Pat Cipollone. Is he going to comply?

KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN SENIOR CRIME AND JUSTICE REPORTER: Right. So, what Cassidy Hutchinson said about Pat Cipollone, what he was saying within the White House on January 6th, was very, very important and it's very serious, and the House select committee now has real momentum coming off of that testimony.

So, Pat Cipollone, the White House counsel at the time, is someone they have long been seeking to talk to. They had ben informally met with Pat a few months ago to see if he would be game for an interview. And he was not -- at that time, apparently, he was not signed up to testify to them. And now they're coming out publicly calling for him to testify, hitting him with this subpoena.

And, really, what Cassidy Hutchinson said about him, it's not just about what he witnessed that he could speak to. She's revealing things that he said to her and to Mark Meadows, the chief of staff, the two main pieces of her testimony to Mark Meadows, Cipollone said, blood is going to be on your hands if you do not get the president to call off the rioters on Capitol Hill.

Obviously, Trump did not, at that time. He was not interested in doing that. The other thing that Cipollone said to Cassidy Hutchinson about Donald Trump wanting to go to Capitol Hill was that he said that if he did, that they would be charged with every crime imaginable.

So, the committee is going to want to ask about those things. Those are astonishing statements that she testified to. But even more astonishing is that he seems responsive to this committee request. A source told Dana Bash who was close to his thinking last night that he probably will agree to a transcribed interview with the House select committee with some limitations.

Obviously, there could be some executive privilege carve-outs, things about confidential communications between him and the president he will not want to share. But really, this is much -- we're in a different situation than we were before. Mark Meadows, the chief of staff, the other top person in the White House, didn't go in for an interview. His predecessor, Don McGahn, didn't either. So, this is a sea change, Poppy.

HARLOW: Yes. And the fact that he's White House counsel, not private counsel to the president, makes a whole host of difference on the questions that he can answer that he would not be able to invoke privilege on.

[11:00:01]

We'll watch.

Katelyn Polantz, thanks so much for your reporting today and all week on this, a huge week for the January 6th investigation.

Thank you so much for being with us today. I'm Poppy Harlow in New York.

SCIUTTO: I'm Jim Sciutto in Madrid, where we've been covering the NATO summit. "AT THIS HOUR" with Kate Bolduan starts right now.