Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Supreme Court Unanimously Rules To Keep Trump On Colorado Ballot. Aired 11-11:30a ET

Aired March 04, 2024 - 11:00   ET

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

[11:00:00]

LARRY SABATO, UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA CENTER FOR POLITICS DIRECTOR: But I'm going to laugh again at the suggestion, well, Congress should take care of this, right. I think the next time there's a Democratic president, a Democratic Senate and a Democratic House, that may happen. But as long as Republicans control anything, it won't.

JIM ACOSTA, CNN HOST: Larry Sabato, thank you very much. And thank you for joining me this morning. I'm Jim Acosta. Our coverage of the Supreme Court's decision to keep Donald Trump on the ballot continues right now with Wolf Blitzer. Thanks for joining us.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: And you are in the CNN Newsroom. I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington. And we begin with the breaking news this morning. The United States Supreme Court ruling that former President Donald Trump cannot be removed from any state's ballot for his actions on January 6th. The nine justices affirming that he can run in a general election and once again serve as the United States commander- in-chief.

In the majority opinion, the court writes that only Congress can enforce the 14th Amendment's ban on insurrectionists holding federal public office. Trump is responding to the decision, calling it, and I'm quoting him now, a big win for America. But the court did not directly speak to whether or not his actions on January 6th equate to insurrection.

Let's get straight to CNN anchor and chief legal analyst Laura Coates. She's outside the Supreme Court for us. Laura, what more, first of all, can you tell us about this very historic and consequential decision?

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST: It is very historic. It took about a month for us to get this decision, but it's essentially saying he can remain on the ballot. Now, for practical purposes, tomorrow is Super Tuesday. He was already on the ballot. It had been sort of stayed, as they say, until this moment in time. But here's why they're saying it. They're saying, look, Congress is the one whose job it is to decide about a federal office and how to apply that Section 3, the so called insurrectionist ban.

Now, this was a unanimous decision, but there was concurring opinions in this case. And that dealt with an issue of whether or not the majority went too far. And it comes down to this, a patchwork. Remember that word today, a patchwork. I'll bring in Paula Reid on this as well, because the patchwork, Paula, has really been about consistency.

If every different state has different approaches to how they might determine whether there has been an insurrection, a criminal prosecution, or lack thereof, different states will have different results. And that could lead to a very confusing electoral process. The Supreme Court wanted no part of that, it seemed.

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: That's exactly right. And when most people think patchwork, they think quilt. But here, clearly, the Supreme Court hears patchwork and they think, quote, chaos, because that's the word that they use again and again. They say, if the states are each able to make their own determination about this particular subject, then we will have a patchwork. It will result in chaos and confusion. And they say, in this opinion, nothing in the Constitution requires that we endure such chaos.

So this does appear based on the law and the confusion around Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. This appears to be a correct decision. Now, it is also an enormous win former President Trump, but it's what we expected after we saw the oral arguments. The justices just did not appear to be buying Colorado's argument.

COATES: Well, they seem to be questioning whether one state could decide for the rest because, you know, we are connected. I mean, we have Electoral College maps.

REID: Yes, family.

COATES: It's a family of sorts. It's a constitutional democracy, right? But there was a really important point here because the so called liberal justices, Kagan, Sotomayor and Katanji Brown Jackson, suggested that they went too far, that there was no need to go further than the patchwork argument because they said, listen, there's no federal entity asking us about this is a state action in Colorado. And so, therefore, asking or telling you how Congress is supposed to act to clarify what they have not called vague is an oddity here.

REID: Exactly. And the realistic fact is that Congress is unlikely to offer any legislation, particularly before this election, to clarify this. So they thought they went too far, though it is notable that they were able to get a unanimous decision even though it was narrow. This is what we expected. This was the challenge for the Chief Justice John Roberts. Can you come up with a unanimous decision? It's likely going to be narrow. Can you get everyone on board? And it appears he was able to do that.

But I also want to talk about another concurring opinion, and that's from Justice Barrett. And here it's interesting. She doesn't want to sign on to what the liberals are saying because they're arguing that they went too far. She said, in my judgment, this is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency.

The court has settled a politically charged issue in a volatile season of a presidential election. Yes, fair, true. But, Laura, that's what the Supreme Court does. They settle volatile questions of national significance. So this quote could come back to haunt her because she goes on to say, particularly in this circumstance, writings on the court should turn the national temperature down, not up.

[11:05:00]

But we know that's not always what Supreme Court decisions do. So I get what she's saying here. This is a time for consensus. A lot of questions about partisanship and ethics on the Supreme Court. For the good of the country, we should all turn the temperature down, not up. But that could come back to haunt her in future decisions when, right, she goes against, maybe her colleagues. It goes against the grade of the national consensus on things. So interesting, the chief justice clearly got a lot of work to do behind the scenes to get a consensus here.

COATES: That might explain also, Wolf, why it's taken a month to get to this very point in time. Now, if you look at the look ahead, there is another very consequential Supreme Court or argument coming at the end of April. It's about absolute immunity and whether a former president can be criminally charged with conduct that occurred while in office. If the timeline holds in about a month it takes place to actually deliberate the ultimate holding in a case you're looking at, well, June or more, which means just a few months shy of our general election.

BLITZER: Yes, they're going to be hearing arguments for April 22nd, and that will be a very important day as well. Laura Coates, Paula Reid, to both of you, thank you very much. This note to our viewers, be sure to join Laura later tonight, 10:00 p.m. Eastern for her show Laura Coates Live. We'll be watching.

For more on this major decision today, I want to bring in CNN senior political analyst Gloria Borger, CNN senior Supreme Court analyst Joan Biskupic, and CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig. And, Joan, let me start with you. Twenty pages if you read single space, a lot of details in this document. I know you've gone through it. All of us have gone through it. No mention in this document whether Trump actually qualifies as an insurrectionist. What did you make of that?

JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN SENIOR SUPREME COURT ANALYST: Well, that's right. And I think we knew that. The handwriting was really on the wall when we heard the oral arguments in February that the justices did not want to go to whether Donald Trump actually engaged in an insurrection, as the lower Colorado courts had. But they were ready to at least get to what I think was a relatively easy bottom line. It was an easy bottom line. The Colorado Supreme Court was an outlier. States just are not empowered to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

But I think the language you're talking about in terms of any kind of insurrection, just look at what the three liberals wrote as they talked about how the majority had gone too far. They agreed, of course, with the majority that Donald Trump should be on the ballot in this case. But they kept referring to this oath breaking insurrectionist possibility. So, you know, at least that was hanging over it. And one thing I want to mention about potentially why this took as long as it did and why the three liberal justices wrote what they did. You know, the chief and the majority were able to put together that procurement pretty quickly. But they had to wait to see just how these concurring justices would write. And I think what that statement by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson reflects is intense frustration behind the scenes.

They're losing on the big substantive cases that the court is taking. Aside from Donald Trump, they have just lost in some ways as the majority decided to take up the immunity question and really run out the calendar on that. Because we know now, because of the justices deciding to hear whether Donald Trump would be immune from any kind of criminal prosecution, it's unlikely he will have any kind of trial before summer, if not all of through 2024.

And I think they just wanted to make sure they laid down a marker that they were not all in here. And, you know, Justice Barrett, who does play nice with all her colleagues all the time, felt like this was just not the time to do it.

BLITZER: It was interesting, Elie, because the majority opinion said only Congress can enforce the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, determining if, in fact, Trump is an insurrectionist.

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Yes. So the point of agreement here, the nine to zero point, is it is not up to the states. All nine justices agree on that. What they disagree on, Wolf, is how exactly the 14th Amendment could be enforced moving forward. The five justices said, only if Congress acts. That's the only way this could work. And the liberal justices, I think, plus Barrett, slightly different tones, but the other justices say, well, there could be other ways this could be enforced other than Congress.

For example, what if somebody was criminally charged with insurrection and convicted? And Sotomayor and Kagan and Jackson say that should be enough. So the bottom line here, though, is this is unanimous. It's not up to the states. And another really important point, this is it nationwide, all the 14th Amendment challenges, Maine, Illinois, the dozens of others that had failed or were still pending. It's over. The 14th Amendment will not be applied to Donald Trump. He will be on the ballot in every state where he wins the primary.

BLITZER: The Supreme Court has decided. And that's the decision. Go ahead Gloria.

GLORIA BORGER, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: I think this really gives us a clue, as Joan was saying, about what's going on behind the scenes. And you've got, of course, this immunity case coming up, which, you know, this was easy compared to the immunity case. Well, we'll see. But what Barrett wrote was so interesting to me. She was kind of telling her fellow female justices to calm down a little bit. But she said, particularly in this circumstance, writings on the court should turn the national temperature down, not up.

[11:10:30] And they've got this immunity case coming up, which is very important. And of course, you know, Donald Trump believes he deserves total immunity, and that's going to be a very divisive case. And lots of people think Donald Trump is going to lose. And the question is, I mean to me, does this give us any indication about the arguments that are going to go on behind the scenes given immunity because, you know, that is, to me, not a difficult decision either. But, you know, it seems to me like there is a lot of steam right now.

BLITZER: Well, are there any indications, Joan, in this 20-page document that the Supreme Court released about where they might be moving on the issue of presidential immunity?

BISKUPIC: No, but we got a clear picture last week when they decided to set oral arguments at, you know, a pretty the -- essentially the latest date for the current session, you know, the last week in April. So that's a sign in terms of just how they want to play it out. But, Wolf, I have to say that everything that informs that case, you know, in terms of prior law and just where the legal arguments are, I would be shocked if they somehow grant former President Trump immunity from criminal prosecution. The law just isn't there.

I think they just wanted to have the last word. They didn't want to leave it to the D.C. circuit, even though that opinion was soundly written and as I said, hewed very closely to related precedent. So I don't think that Donald Trump is going to win in that one. It's just that when he does lose, will it be too late for Special Counsel Jack Smith, representing the United States, to actually bring a criminal prosecution and trial?

BORGER: And will it be difficult for the court to reach a unanimous decision?

BISKUPIC: I don't -- I think that -- I don't think you're going to see one single opinion on the immunity thing.

BORGER: Yes.

BISKUPIC: They might all end up on the bottom line, whereas here they did end up on the bottom line. But what I've stressed is that this case was the easy one overall.

BORGER: Yes. Exactly.

BISKUPIC: The next case is harder.

BLITZER: Elie, for weeks you've been saying on this program, you've been saying to me and to our viewers, what exactly happened with the Supreme Court today? You knew what was going to happen. You were 100 percent right. So I ask you this question, what is going to happen on presidential immunity?

HONIG: Oh, boy. That's a tougher one, as Joan said. Lucky guess, first of all, on this. No, look, I think this one wasn't hard to see coming because it just cannot be that we have 50 different states applying the 14th Amendment 50 different ways. And I think that was all that was sort of animating my view on this.

Here's my view on immunity. Some of the arguments that Donald Trump is making I think are ridiculous and easily dismissed. The idea that he has blanket immunity the entire four years he was president because he was president, that I think can get the back of the hand. The argument that he made about impeachment, well, first I would have to be impeached and then convicted by the Senate, and only then could I be removed. That one is, to me, completely meritless, easily dismissed also.

BISKUPIC: Well, they're not even going to hear that part of it.

HONIG: Right.

BISKUPIC: Yes.

HONIG: So very easily dismissed. The part that might get tricky is an argument about whether Donald Trump was acting within or outside the scope. And the grant of cert does suggest that they're interested in that. So it's possible the Supreme Court says a person can be immune if he's within the scope. Now we send it back to the trial court. You have to tell us, was he within the scope or not? That would be not a middle ground outcome. But that's the only reason I think it's going to be really tricky.

BLITZER: Yes.

BORGER: That would bending over backwards, though. I mean, that would be doing somersaults to find a way to say that he could get some form of immunity, wouldn't it?

HONIG: We've seen him do gymnastics before.

BORGER: Yes.

BLITZER: All right, Gloria, Joan, Elie, guys, thank you very, very much.

This quick programming note, later tonight, 6:00 p.m. Eastern in the Situation Room, Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold will join me. We'll discuss this historic day and a lot more. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:19:07]

BLITZER: There's no question that the United States Supreme Court is casting a huge shadow over this year's presidential election. And it's difficult to overstate how important this week in particular is. Tomorrow is Super Tuesday, the biggest primary election of this cycle. Voters in 15 states and American Samoa will help shape the general election in November. It also might be the last primary for Nikki Haley, the lone GOP challenger standing in Donald Trump's way.

Today, the focus is on the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that Donald Trump should appear on the ballot. In Colorado, the justices rejected a push to ban him from taking part as part of an insurrection, that was the ruling. CNN political commentator and republican strategist Alice Stewart is joining us, along with CNN political commentator and former South Carolina state representative Bakari Sellers. To both of you, thanks for joining us.

[11:20:01]

Alice, Donald Trump weighed in swiftly and succinctly just a little while ago, posting on his social media, big win for America. Could this ruling actually beneficial to Democrats and President Biden?

ALICE STEWART, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: It certainly could be, Wolf, because this is a win for America, because the American people will have the opportunity to decide who's on ballot and not unelected justices. And I think one of the important aspects that we heard out of the legal panel earlier is what Justice Amy Coney Barrett said, is that the differences on this case are far less important than the unanimity of the court here. All nine justices agreed. This is the way this should come about, and Donald Trump's name should be placed on the ballot.

And we heard reverberations throughout the GOP agreeing with Donald Trump. This is a win for America. This was overzealous liberal justices and secretaries of states who took action to remove who they see as a threat to Joe Biden. And ultimately, this was unlawful and uncharacteristic for this type of action to be done.

And they agreed with the Supreme Court's decision, and the American people should have the right to do so. And, look, if I was a Democrat, I would actually embrace this. If their argument is that Joe Biden can beat Donald Trump fairly at the ballot box, then this is the perfect opportunity to do so. And he doesn't need to rely on the crutch of removing Donald Trump from the ballot in any state, let alone Colorado.

BLITZER: Yes, important point. Bakari, Colorado's secretary of state, also weighed in very quickly, saying in part, let me put this quote up there. Colorado should be able to bar oath breaking insurrectionists from our ballot. What's your reaction?

BAKARI SELLERS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, Wolf, first, I just want to correct my good friend, Alice, on her statement that he was removed because he was a threat to Joe Biden. In fact, that was not the case. The reason being is because he participated in an insurrection. That question was not answered by this Supreme Court. Is Donald Trump an insurrectionist? Can he be charged with those crimes? It's something that we will have an oral argument on in a decision later in the spring.

The fact is, many Democrats have not spoken out in favor of this ruling. Many of us want to beat Donald Trump at the ballot box, not necessarily have him removed for the simple reason that this was a slippery slope. You can have a president or a candidate for president on a ballot in certain states and removed from other states, like Texas or South Carolina or Arkansas, Alabama. And that slippery slope seems to be unfair.

And so the justices got it right in this case by restoring Donald Trump to the ballot in all 50 states. The question still remains, though. Did Donald Trump participate, help orchestrate back an insurrection on January 6th? I think we'll get that answer sooner rather than later.

BLITZER: You know, it's interesting, Alice, if you read this 20-page decision by the United States Supreme Court, the three liberal justices broke from the conservative majority on some important points, but the bottom line vote was unanimous, all nine justices agreeing Trump's name should be on the ballot. What does that suggest to you?

STEWART: Well, it shows that they really looked at this from the legal standpoint and ultimately came to an agreement that Donald Trump should be on the ballot. And look, this should not be left up to individual states and justices. This should be decided by the Congress. The Section 3, Article 14 of the U.S. Constitution should be dictated and determined by members of Congress. And that is what the justices said. And look, I agree in part what my friend, Bakari, said.

If and when Donald Trump is convicted of an insurrection, I think this is an opportunity to revisit the question of his eligibility to run. But right now, he has not been convicted of an insurrection. And it is extremely premature to go about and have him suffer consequences for something that he has not been convicted of.

BLITZER: Yes, Bakari. On another political issue, I want to share with you and our viewers a really fascinating profile by Evan Osnos in the New Yorker magazine entitled Joe Biden's last campaign. Osnos, who did a lengthy Oval Office interview with the president, writes this, and I'm quoting him, when I asked whether he thinks that Trump will concede if he loses in 2024, Biden said, no. Losers who are losers are never graceful, he said, I just think that he'll do anything to try to win. If and when I win, I think he'll contest it no matter what the result is. So, Bakari, do you see this Biden needling Trump or an ominous prediction?

SELLERS: Yes. And I think, you know, the campaign, the Biden campaign has made a concerted effort to label Donald Trump as a loser. Ever since 2016, Donald Trump has not won much, whether or not it's 2018 midterms, 2020 election, 2022 midterms, et cetera. And so I think that loser caricature, that loser label, is sticking with Trump and needling him. But this race is so far away from where we sit today.

[11:25:12]

Here in March, getting to November is going to be like seasons. It's going to be like years and even decades to some, that feeling. And we may have a convicted Donald Trump running for president of the United States. And what that means is that after he loses this election, Donald Trump will continue to try to do everything like losers do to maintain some semblance of power. And that is the danger. Democracy is fragile, and Donald Trump knows that. And he pushes and pushes and pushes to try to rip democracy apart at its foundation. BLITZER: We will see. Bakari Sellers, Alice Stewart, to both of you, thank you very much.

I want to continue this important discussion. Joining us now, CNN contributor John Dean. He served as White House counsel for President Nixon. John, thanks very much for joining us. Big picture, give us your reaction to this United States Supreme Court ruling today.

JOHN DEAN, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Well, I think a lot of people and Donald Trump are playing this as a Trump win. I don't necessarily see it that way. This was a hurdle that came up late for him in his plans for reelection, and he got around it. He was lucky.

He didn't have much -- there was not much forethought on this whole thing. But the court did the right thing. And they came together. The chief got a unanimous decision, just as was done in dealing with the president with Nixon, and is important that the court speak with one voice. I can recall, Wolf, that Nixon was looking for a hole he could get around and the court forcing him to turn over his secret tapes. There was no hole. They made it airtight. I think this is just a nice, clean opinion as well.

BLITZER: Do you think the ruling was proper?

DEAN: I do. I, you know, it's clearly a part of the amendment itself. There's an implementing Section 5 there for Congress to do as the court said they should do. And I don't think this Congress will certainly act on that. I'm not sure any Republican Congress can act on anything anymore. So it's just going to be out there.

BLITZER: Yes. All nine justices agreed on the final decision to keep Trump's name on the ballot. But what do you make of the way the three liberal justices on the court, John, accused their colleagues of going too far with this decision?

DEAN: Well, I'm not surprised by that because indeed the, you know, that's been the experience they've had up with this court where, excuse me, six justices leap out and take radical positions and they're stuck trying to actually be in the middle. So they are shooting one across the bow, if you will, to remind them they're here and they're going to call out radical decisions.

BLITZER: The court took about a month to decide this case. John, does this give us a window into the timeline for the other huge case before the Supreme Court, Trump's claim of presidential immunity and all these other legal cases against him?

DEAN: I think the immunity case is a little more delicate, Wolf, because there are some real issues there as to what the president can and cannot do in his official capacity. So they're going to have to think about that. In the area of national security, it's clear presidents do often act outside the law. When they get to domestic business, though, that's another issue. And I think they're going to want to be careful as to how they do this. So it is going to be a little bit more protracted. It will be well briefed because they're giving plenty of time for amicus brief to get filed. They have time to think about it. And I think, you know, it's not an exorbitant amount of time. And still the other cases can go forward with a little bit more rush, maybe have to be trimmed down a little bit. But I think we'll get some answers before the election.

BLITZER: Yes, we'll get the oral arguments April 22nd. We'll see what happens after that. John Dean, thank you very, very much.

[11:29:13]

There's more breaking news coming into the CNN Newsroom right now. A former top executive at the Trump Organization pleads guilty to perjury charges. We're live outside the court with the very latest.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)