Return to Transcripts main page

CNN This Morning

Supreme Court Issues Decision All But Eliminating Affirmative Action in College Admissions; Supreme Court to Hand Down Decisions on Biden Student Loan Forgiveness Program and Religious Rights; Officials Arrest Taylor Taranto Blocks from Former President Obama's Home Claiming He Made Threats Online; Ex-Resource Officer Acquitted In Parkland Case; Coast Guard Report Kept Hidden For Years. Aired 8-8:30a ET

Aired June 30, 2023 - 08:00   ET

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

[08:00:00]

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Which we're going to explore next hour.

POPPY HARLOW, CNN ANCHOR: This is the law of the land now. It's a very different America for students and universities. The Supreme Court is not done yet, though. After its landmark decision to gut Affirmative Action in college admissions, we're going to take a look at the major rulings that are set to come down just hours from now.

MATTINGLY: And the school resource officer accused of hiding during the Parkland School shooting has been found not guilty on all charges. He joins us live in just a few minutes.

HARLOW: And CNN rides along with animal rescue teams in a desperate mission to save sea lions from toxic algae. Wait until you see that report.

This hour of CNN THIS MORNING starts right now.

Here is where we begin. It is another huge day for the country from the nation's high court. Just hours from now we are expecting more consequential decisions from the Supreme Court that could reshape America as we know it. It comes after yesterday's ruling on Affirmative Action declaring race cannot be used as an express factor in college admissions. It is another sweeping change from the court's conservative supermajority. It could have a lasting impact on the diversity of campuses across the nation for decades to come.

Two of the key decisions left for today are student loan relief for tens of millions of Americans, and there is the case of a web designer who refused to make websites for same-sex weddings.

CNN justice correspondent Jessica Schneider is tracking all of it for us. A huge week for the court, for the country, and these opinions today also, either way they go, will have a huge impact.

JESSICA SCHNEIDER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, exactly. And we are really zoning in on the student loan debt forgiveness. The Supreme Court is going to decide this morning, unless they dismiss it on a technical ground, whether the Biden administration has the authority to grant student loan forgiveness to more 40 million Americans. And it comes at a price tack of about $400 billion.

So, so far, lower courts have struck down the program. So it's been on hold. But if the court here today says that the challengers maybe never had the legal right to bring this lawsuit or if the court decides that the administration was in fact within its power to enact this debt relief program, millions of borrowers could have up to $20,000 in debt wiped away.

I will warn, though, that the tone of arguments really was a lot of skepticism from the conservative justices here. They were really skeptical about whether the administration even had the ability to do something like this under the law with such a massive price tag, $400 billion. And these justices also were asking questions about fairness. Justice Gorsuch in particular asked how is it fair to have debt wiped away now at this point for some when others have already paid.

So Poppy and Phil, that is the big case we are really looking at today. Just because of the impact of it, it will affect millions of Americans, millions are in limbo right now. When this program was put on hold, 26 million people had already been approved, 16 million were still waiting. But there will be a lot of work to do if and when they approve this or strike it down.

MATTINGLY: That's right, a longstanding payment freeze put in during the pandemic is slated to end shortly as well. That factors in.

I do want to ask you before we let you go. There are also LGBTQ rights cases on the docket. What are we expecting out of those?

SCHNEIDER: Yes. So this is the case of a wedding website designer in Colorado. She is refusing to make websites for same-sex couples. Her argument is her free speech is violated by this Colorado state law that prohibits businesses from discriminating against or refusing to serve same-sex couples. So her argument is, hey, look, I am being forced to speak, in a sense, by making websites for marriages I disagree with all because of her religion.

There is a little bit of question in this case about her standing, her legal right to bring this, because this designer hasn't actually got her business up and running yet. She is asking for this ruling before there has really been anyone forcing her to make the websites. But if they do decide in favor of this wedding website designer, the concern from the liberal justices that we saw at argument is if this court does side with her, could it open the door to other creative businesses to refuse to service people they don't agree with, whether it's on basis of religion or race or viewpoint? They worry it could really open the door for a lot more discrimination.

So guys, a lot riding on these two big cases that will come down today beginning at 10:00 a.m. because we are on the last day of the Supreme Court's term here.

Jessica Schneider, we know you'll be tracking all of it and with us live as they come down. Thank you very much.

MATTINGLY: And also with us live right now, Lindsay Peoples, editor in chief of "The Cut," CNN Supreme Court analyst Steve Vladeck, and Josh Barro is back with us. Lindsay, I want to start with you on this. One of the things I think people have been trying to figure out is the polling on this is split to some degree. And while this institution is not necessarily driven by public opinion, the divide on the polling on the issue of Affirmative Action I think has been striking to some degree, particularly in terms of how it breaks down on racial lines.

[08:05:07]

People might say, well, that is what should be expected. No, this has been the way for the last four or five decades of legal precedent. Why do you think there is such a division on this issue?

LINDSAY PEOPLES, CO-FOUNDER, BLACK IN FASHION COUNCIL: I think there is such division because I think Affirmative Action has traditionally been marketed as an issue that is solely about race when it really is about so many things that we know has improved as far as reducing discrimination, and I do think the biggest issue for me as a black woman is seeing that Affirmative Action has really also increased gender representation, specifically beneficial to white women the most. White women have also seen such an increase in the workforce on college campuses from Affirmative Action yet are the biggest critics of Affirmative Action.

And so I think that running a publication that is geared towards women of color, women in general, and defends, I think it's incredibly disheartening to see really a lack of intersectional feminism but also I think a very conditional sisterhood that I think really begs the question and challenges what white women will do with the systemic privileges that they have been given through racism.

HARLOW: Fantastic publication, by the way. Reading I dedicate my time to.

Steve Vladeck, I thought your analysis on this, as always, fascinating on Twitter yesterday, was really blunt. You said it's an ending without an ending. For people who looked at the Roberts opinion and saw this window and said this is not saying what Clarence Thomas wanted, which is no Affirmative Action, you see it differently than them. There is no window?

STEVE VLADECK, AUTHOR, "THE SHADOW DOCKET": Poppy, I think the window is so small as to be practically ineffective. I think there is going to be effort by public and private schools especially in blue states that have not already taken measures to limit these kinds of statements to have diversity statements tacked on applications. But any time a school actually relies on those statements, any time a school says our policy is to credit those statements, they are running afoul of Chief Justice Roberts' opinion. At the very least, Poppy, they are opening themselves up to be sued.

HARLOW: Steve, how are they running afoul of the chief justice who explicitly wrote in the majority opinion, this in no way prohibits people from -- we have it right there - in no way prohibits people from writing about this in essays, talking about how their race has impacted their life.

VLADECK: Yes. So Poppy, what is slippery about the chief justice's opinion is that passage, which is such an important passage, is focused on the applicant. But when it comes to what the university is allowed to do, can the admissions office sit around and say if we see a statement that talks up the role of race in upbringing, we are going to give it extra credit in the process, that runs afoul of the rest of the chief's opinion.

And so part of what is so frustrating about yesterday's decision is that it walks right up to line of ending Affirmative Action categorically, but now puts admissions officers, really, Poppy, in what's a bit of a catch-22 where they can point to the passage you quote and say there is still a little room for race in this context, but the more that they make that overt, the more they make that categorical, the more they are running into the other parts of the opinion.

HARLOW: This is why Steve is one of the leading constitutional minds in the country, because he sees beyond the black and white on the -- no pun intended, but on the paper, literally. He sees beyond the words.

MATTINGLY: And while I have not one-80th of the legal intellect of Steve Vladeck, it has been the issue that I have been trying to figure out, too. And Josh, I think to some degree, this was very telegraphed that it was coming, if you followed conservative legal scholars, who is on the court, the supermajority, this was predicted. And it lined up with what predictions were.

And so my question has long been, what happens next? And Steve makes this fascinating point. How are admissions officers going to operate here, how do they police what this actually means, why would universities not want diverse student bodies and try to implement this on their own? What's your sense of how this goes.

JOSH BARRO, AUTHOR, "VERY SERIOUS" NEWSLETTER ON SUBSTACK: Not only was it telegraphed coming up here, but going back decades in these Supreme Court decisions, the Supreme Court has rejected the primary rationale that advocates of Affirmative Action have been offering in the last week. Going back to the Bakke station, you were allowed to have Affirmative Action for creating a diverse student body, because that was supposed to produce educational benefits.

The sort of reparative aspect of Affirmative Action, when people talk about there is still racism in America and there's still unfair advantages and disadvantages, that not only is not an argument the court accepted now, it's an argument that the court has not accepted as a rationale for Affirmative Action for decades. And jurisprudence also always had this idea that these programs were supposed to be temporary, sort of floating this idea that we might do this for 25 more years. So yes, the universities should have been prepared.

I think people are assuming that the universities are going to look for ways to do end runs around this decision. That certainly is an option on the part of universities, but they don't have do that.

[08:10:00]

I think one likely future outcome here is Republicans and Democrats both are talking about how, well, legacy admissions are so unfair. There is no law against legacy admissions, but there could be a law against legacy admissions. I think that's something that you might actually see some bipartisan interest in Washington, saying if you're going to have this restriction on the playing field, there is no reason that Washington can't come in and pose other restrictions that people think will produce a more fair admission environment.

HARLOW: It's certainly raising so many questions this morning, why race and not legacy, and these other --

BARRO: Because that's the law. The 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act address discrimination on the basis of race, and the Civil Rights Act on basis of sex and certain other things. They don't address legacy admissions. But that's not a reason you couldn't have a new law.

HARLOW: Yes. I want to give you the final word on this because Josh is right pointing to Justice O'Connor's majority opinion in Greta versus Bollinger, did talk about a 25-year sunset, and the Powell decision in Bakke did talk expressly about a diverse student body being a compelling state interest.

The question is also, though, maybe it's not the legal question, but it's what is happening in life as was referred to in one of the dissents. I don't know that we have come as a country nearly as far as Sandra Day O'Connor thought when she wrote that opinion, and she told that to her biographer 11 years later. The question is, what does this mean implemented?

PEOPLES: Culturally, I just think that it is delusional to think our country is going to prioritize diversity when we have systemically been oppressing people, we have been fighting for our rights for voting, to use our voice, to be able to vote, to be able to buy property, all these things. And so I think that inclusivity is something that can't be passive, and people have to be active in their allyship towards this or we're not going to see any change.

MATTINGLY: There is a lot more to come on this. And to your point, follow Steve on Twitter. I learn a ton. I don't learn lot from Twitter these days, but I learn a lot from Steve in terms of when these cases come out and what his reads on them are. Josh, thanks, Lindsay, thanks very much for your perspective.

HARLOW: Also this story this morning, Washington Metro Police have arrested a man with numerous firearms and materials to make an explosive. The arrest was made just blocks from former President Obama's home. Officials say Taylor Taranto made threats on an Internet live stream and had an arrest warrant related to the January 6th insurrection.

Joining us now is our very own is John Miller. Scary. JOHN MILLER, CNN CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND INTELLIGENCE ANALYST: So

it's interesting also how it came together, as well as being very concerning.

So Taylor Taranto, known quantity in January 6th crowd, a guy who was inside the Capitol who was on video at the spot where Ashli Babbitt was shot by Capitol police where they were breaking through the window, has been on the radar of the FBI, joint terrorist traffic force, kind of January 6th probe.

What happened yesterday was the Capitol police, seeing some of his live streams showing he was in Washington and statements that they interpret as being threatening to members of Congress, put out a BOLO, be on the lookout for this individual. If he is seen, the U.S. Secret Service uniform division, which is on patrol in the neighborhood where President Obama, former President Obama lives, spots him. They do the stop. His van, which he seems to be living out, is parked a short distance away. They look in the van, see very concerning things, call the bomb squad.

What they have is materials to make Molotov cocktails, bottles, rags, fuels, numerous handguns, one rifle. So they are trying to assess in the FBI investigation into him where are they, what was his presence there, what was the purpose of the weapons. He is all the way from Seattle living out of this van in Washington and making these alleged threats. So this is a case that is still coming together. We expect to learn more in his initial appearance in court later today. But there's a lot of bad signs there.

MATTINGLY: Can you give a little more context on Taranto? Obviously, he has a profile. Obviously, law enforcement very aware of him. What do we know about his background?

MILLER: He's 37 years old, was in the Capitol on January 6th, has appeared on a number of videos. But he is a blogger. He is a communicator. He has interviewed on shows about free the January 6th subjects. Interestingly, he was sued by the wife of a Capitol police officer who died after January 6th. He was injured that day but committed suicide, and they attributed that to PTSD. Her case was dismissed because she couldn't connect his specific connections to her husband's death. But he has been a voice and figure in the January 6th movement, the issue about yesterday is what are the weapons for, why is he there, and why the makings of Molotov cocktails.

HARLOW: So many questions. John, thank you. Appreciate it.

MATTINGLY: The former school resource officer accused of failing to confront the mass shooter at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, acquitted on all counts.

[08:15:00]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The defendant is not guilty. So, say we all this 29th day of June 2023 at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida. Verdict --

(END VIDEO CLIP)

POPPY HARLOW, CNN ANCHOR: That former officer Scot Peterson, joins us live with his attorney.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The defendant is not guilty. So, say we all this 29th day of June 2023 of Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida. Verdict count two, we the jury find as follows as to the defendant in this case. The defendant is not guilty.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: That's former School Resource Officer Scot Peterson, breaking down in tears after being found not guilty on all charges for failing to confront the gunman who killed 17 people during the February 2018 massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. Peterson faced seven counts of felony child neglect, three counts of culpable negligence, and one count of perjury. Prosecutors accused Peterson of ignoring his training and doing nothing instead taking cover for more than 45 minutes outside the school before the killer was apprehended.

Peterson's attorney argued the then-deputy didn't enter the building because he couldn't tell where the shots were coming from. Then, he was found not guilty on all charges. Joining us now is Scot Peterson and his attorney, Mark Eiglarsh. Scot, thank you for joining us. I want you to listen to what some of the parents said. You know, we saw your emotional reaction, understandable emotional reaction after the not guilty verdict was read. This was what some of the parents of those students said when they heard what happened yesterday.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MANUEL OLIVER, SON JOAQIN, KILLED IN PARKLAND MASS SHOOTING: It's another failure like the system did it again and again and again. I'm watching this individual crying, like a victim. He's signed for a job that he'd not deliver. Shame on him for that too.

TOM HOYER, SON LUKE KILLED IN PARKLAND MASS SHOOTING: Deeply, deeply disappointed. All the evidence, all the video, it just shows that he valued his life over the life of the people on the third floor.

[08:20:20]

TONY MONTALTO, DAUGHTER GINA, KILLED IN PARKLAND MASS SHOOTING: Deputy Peterson and the lawyer's family as they share this victory. For our families, we still feel he should be haunted every day, by his failure to act. I know that he had caused, he contributed I should say to the deaths of my daughter, Gina, her schoolmates and their teachers. LINDA BEIGEL SCHULMAN, SON SCOTT, KILLED IN PARKLAND MASS SHOOTING: My Scott did what Scot Peterson should have done. My Scott protected his students, he saved 31 students. OK, from the shooter. That's what Scot Peterson should have done.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: I'm interested Scot, what's your response? I know you said you would like to meet with the families, if they would like to meet with you. You would like to talk to them. What's your response when you hear those emotional responses?

SCOT PETERSON, FORMER PARKLAND HIGH SCHOOL RESCUE OFFICER: My heart goes out to all the families regarding that massacre on February 14, 2018.

MATTINGLY: Do you understand why? Perhaps, again, you make clear you said you got your life back, your emotional response, when the not guilty plea was read. Do you understand why the parents may have a different perspective on this?

PETERSON: I can understand their hurt. They lost their kids on that terrible day. But -- I really don't -- I really don't know what I would, you know, say. I did -- I did everything the best I could.

HARLOW: You have expressed a desire to meet with some of those parents to talk to them? You just said you don't know what. You would say, do you mean to the audience or to them in private? Is there something you'd like them to know?

PETERSON: No. To them, I know exactly what I would say. I'm saying here to this audience.

HARLOW: OK.

PETERSON: But to them, I know exactly what I'd say.

HARLOW: Of course, we respect that you would want to do that in private. I am interested, you know, broadly in you had 17 people murdered that day. And we saw Florida enact real changes in gun laws after Parkland, including red flag laws. as someone who was -- who was there. Do you believe that there are more things that could be done to keep our kids safe in their schools?

PETERSON: I think I'll defer that to Mark to answer that.

MARK EIGLARSH, SCOT PETERSON'S ATTORNEY: Yes, I think we're missing the point. This is a man who was acquitted by a jury who found that he was not guilty of the meritless baseless charges brought to him. That he along with numerous other deputies couldn't tell where the shots were coming from. And did everything he could by ordering your code red and by trying to save students on campus.

The issue is the system worked. The system protected an officer who dedicated his life for 32 years to law enforcement and who had baseless meritless charges brought against him. He just went through a living hell for four years and was finally acquitted. So, yes, listen, my heart goes out to the families. I'm so sorry, they went through all that. But the monster who did it is serving a life sentence. This man did everything he could, and no way could have stopped what took place.

HARLOW: I think my my question was about -- and I hear you, Mark. My question was about having been there on such a tragic day. He has a unique perspective, Scot, you have a unique perspective on what it takes to keep these students across the country safe. I think that's just what I was trying to get at.

EIGLARSH: OK. How about having radios that work? They gave my client a radio that was 25 to 30 years old, and none of the cops on campus could communicate. How about fixing the radio system, so that when information comes in to 911 it doesn't go to Coral Springs Police Department, it goes to BSO. So, first responders like my client could hear in real time precisely where the shooter's located. These aren't his issues.

HARLOW: Yes.

EIGLARSH: His supervisors set him up for failure and then held a press conference and Sheriff Israel threw him under the bus for his own political gain. That caused parents to be outraged naturally. They lost their kids and they thought erroneously, he could have prevented it. And then charges were brought after the governor insisted that investigation commence.

So, this was all political and coincidentally, I couldn't even argue that in the trial. Nevertheless, the jurors saw through it, and saw that this man a dedicated award-winning officer who gave his heart and soul to everyone on that campus, was not guilty of anything.

[08:25:14]

MATTINGLY: Mark, given your forceful response to this. I mean, you guys agreed to do this. I think it's entirely fair for us to show what the parents are saying, and I understand your perspective here. I guess my question would be, given what the parents are saying, given the fact that this portion is done. What is -- what are your expectations of civil litigation going forward?

EIGLARSH: All options are on the table. We're considering everything but the most important thing is for both my client and I finally to move forward after four years of fighting charges that could have resulted in a life sentence. This man could have gone to prison for life yesterday, if prosecutors they had their way.

It shouldn't come down to him, lucking out and connecting with a lawyer who from his core believed in his client's innocence. And fought against a team of prosecutors who tried to put them in prison for the rest of his life. That should never happen to any officer anywhere. My passion is justified, because no one should ever have to go through what he went through.

MATTINGLY: All right, Scot Peterson and Mark Eiglarsh, thank you. HARLOW: Thank you gentlemen. We do have new CNN exclusive reporting about sexual assault at the Coast Guard Academy. What was uncovered and why it took so long to come to light? That's ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARLOW: Now to a CNN exclusive. The Coast Guard has been hiding a damning --