Return to Transcripts main page
One World with Zain Asher
Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett Delivered Majority Opinion; Sources: Secret U.S. Diplomatic Push to Restart Iran Talks; U.S. & China Formalize Deal on Rare Earth Shipments; U.S. Supreme Court Gives Trump Big Win on Nationwide Injunctions; Trump's Domestic Agenda Faces Headwinds in U.S. Senate; Trump Speaks After Supreme Court Issues Major Rulings. Aired 11a-12p ET
Aired June 27, 2025 - 11:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[11:00:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ISA SOARES, CNN HOST, ONE WORLD: Live from London. I'm Isa Soares. Zain and Bianna are off today. And you are watching "One World". It's an incredibly
-- it's an incredibly consequential day at the U.S. Supreme Court, where a landmark decision has just been in the last what 10 minutes or so, being
handed down that really could expand executive powers.
In a 6-3 ruling along pretty much ideological lines, the conservative majority court is backing President Donald Trump's efforts to reign in
federal judges who have hampered his agenda for months. The case pretty much centered around whether President Trump could enforce his executive
order ending birthright citizenship.
Now the judges, and that's very clear here, the judges do not rule on the constitutionality of that issue, but instead on whether lower courts
overstep their authority by blocking that order with nationwide injunctions. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing in her dissent, accused the
majority of shamefully playing along with quote, the administration's gamesmanship.
Let's get more on this now with a guest you know very well on the show, David Weinstein, a Former State and Federal Prosecutor. Welcome to the
show, David. So, I know you. I understand from my team that you have been pouring through this hundred or so page, ruling, 6-3 ruling, as we said,
what just break it down for us without the legal ease if you can?
DAVID WEINSTEIN, FORMER ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA: Certainly. So, look, my biggest takeaway from all of this is this
has the potential to create chaos and havoc throughout this country. As now courts in different states and within different states can only issue
rulings that pertain to cases in their jurisdiction and people who are in front of them.
What the court in Seattle did at first and the court in Massachusetts did after that, was try to have a universal ruling that would apply to
everybody. The Supreme Court said, no, you can't do that. The executive branch said, that's exactly what we said. And so, as a result, what now
happens is that rulings only apply to the people who have filed the case in front of the particular judge.
And this is not going to impact only this case. It's going to impact all the cases that are pending with whatever result each party is seeking. So
now we're going to have judges who may issue an injunction, may issue a preliminary or even a permanent injunction, and it's only binding in that
jurisdiction and district, for example, in Florida, we have three different districts.
So, a judge who rules in North Florida on a particular case in the Northern District of Florida, that ruling is not binding on anything that happens in
the Southern District of Florida, some other judge is going to have to issue an opinion. It may be the same, it may be different.
And so, the potential application here is an increase in the number of lawsuits, an increase in different rulings, and then ultimately, when they
get to the actual issue at hand, which is that executive order, it's going to then funnel its way up to the Supreme Court through all the circuit
courts of appeals. So, this has the potential to go on for a very long time.
SOARES: So, are you seeing then, David, first of all, do we have a sense of how quickly we'll be implemented? I know the practicality of it is slightly
more complex, as you've just laid out, in terms of how quickly you'll be implemented. And then, if you're -- you know, if you're in the lower
courts, and -- you know, how do you process this? How then do you react to this? How will they move on this?
WEINSTEIN: Well Isa, let's go with your first question. It's instantaneous. That is now the law of the land. So that case in Seattle that's now been
sent back down, and that injunction only potentially can apply in the district in Seattle. Same goes for the cases over in Massachusetts.
In terms of the judges now they're going to expect to see an increase in the flow of the number of cases plaintiffs, lawyers for affected
individuals, are now going to start filing cases throughout the country. Their case load is going to increase on this issue alone.
But it also is going to impact other cases that are pending, other immigration cases, other deportation cases, where courts have issued these
universal nationwide injunctions. Those are no longer in effect, and it happens instantaneously. This is now the law of the land.
SOARES: So, if you're a non-citizen just for our viewers right around the world, David, if you're a non-citizen you've had a baby in United States,
what does that mean? How then do you proceed?
WEINSTEIN: Well, under the executive order that's only been enjoined in a couple of different places.
[11:05:00]
The executive can go out now and enforce that order and say, birthright citizenship no longer applies. You are now subject to deportation if you're
not a naturalized citizen, and can start acting on that and can start directing Homeland Security and ICE to go, start taking people into custody
for deportation based on that.
Now, those people will get a lawyer, file a lawsuit, seek a temporary injunction from it happening, but it's another potential avenue for the
government now to seek deportation on people who they believe are not U.S. citizens.
SOARES: And David as you are talking, I'm now seeing that President Donald Trump has just commented on that. Just bear with me. I'm just going to read
it. He called it a giant win. As you can see, the giant win in the United States Supreme Court, even the birthright citizenship hoax, he says, has
been indirectly hit hard.
This is him posting on Truth Social congratulations to Attorney General Pam Bondi, Solicitor General John Sauer and the entire DOJ. On the first point,
it is perhaps David can be seen as a win for him. But in the second point that citizenship has been hit hard, that is not the decision here. We're
not there yet. But on that first point, that is a win for him. He's right. Is he not?
WEINSTEIN: He -- no he is. This was a huge win for him. This is something that his administration has been complaining about for a very long time,
that district court judges in a certain part of the country are issuing these nationwide injunctions affecting the entire country.
So, for the Supreme Court to say, no, you're right, they can't do that, that's a huge win for him and for his administration. As to the second
issue, it's far from over his executive order that's going to wind through the courts for quite a long time. And so, it's not a win at all on that
issue. They punted on that issue. They specifically said we're not here to talk about that. We're only here to talk about the injunction issue.
SOARES: Let me just put this to you. Our Paula Reid, who was on air, what about 30 minutes or so ago, said, and she was quoting David a Trump page.
He said this, talking about the ruling and the injunctions is the ball game for President Trump, because this directly affects Trump's ability to
govern by executive action. Speak to the risks and really the implications here, not with this case, but other cases of other rulings potentially.
WEINSTEIN: Well, Isa Paula is exactly right. He is now going to issue executive orders that he will say of the law of the land. And to challenge
these executive orders, they're going to have to be challenged by individuals in an individual court.
And so that is going to allow him to now make broad rulings throughout the country, which individual judges are going to have to address many, many
different cases at the same time. So, it does give him the ability to sort of rule by executive order, at least for the short term, until the lower
courts start challenging this and it winds its way back up.
SOARES: And in real terms, in practical terms here for the courts, it's just going to be a pile of extra work that they have to then have to deal
with, with all these competing rulings. Just speak to the practicality here, David of this, as we all process this information and as courts, of
course, so having to do the same at that in real time.
WEINSTEIN: Well Isa, in a large part of our country, judges have overwhelmingly large caseloads. They're down active and retired sitting
judges, and so each judge's case load is rather large to begin with. It's now going to balloon, and they're going to have to address the cases as
they come in.
They're going to have to determine whether people have what's called standing the ability to challenge this. Can they now file it as a class
action? Is that something that's going to even be able to happen? And then they're going to have to rule within their jurisdiction and their district.
And they also have to handle not only civil cases, but criminal cases as well.
So, these judge's caseloads are going to balloon extraordinarily and exponentially, and their dockets are going to be filled, and that's going
to push other cases down and distract from the attention that's given to them.
And again, they have to treat each case individually. They always do, but now they're going to have more cases to treat. They may make similar
rulings, they may try to put them together and consolidate them so they don't have to keep having separate hearings, but there's a lot of work
ahead for the judges, and for the lawyers on both sides.
SOARES: Very quickly and briefly here, David, does this ruling give us any insight as to how? How we may go on the executive order here? Or they just
completely separate? Does it you have an inkling of how we might be going here on the executive order based on this?
[11:10:00]
WEINSTEIN: Completely separate. If I'm going to look and read the tea leaves here --
SOARES: Yeah.
WEINSTEIN: -- they did what's called strict construction here. They looked at the Constitution. They looked at the way our founding fathers set up
this country hundreds of years ago. What they thought their intent was? What they felt that the power was going to be for courts when they were
created with that particular article of the constitution? And how much power they had?
So, in terms of, can we guess what it might mean on the executive order, there might be some insight there. I think that they're going to now look
at what the Constitution says. What did the exact amendment say? When was it written? What was going on at the time that it was written? What do the
words in the amendment mean about birthright citizenship?
And then, what does it mean that the executive has the authority to govern immigration, to govern national security? So those people who believe in
the strict construction, they're going to be saying that this potentially could signal a win, because what the law says, what the document says,
that's going to be, what's controlling.
SOARES: Yeah, such important points you raise. Thank you very much, David. Really appreciate it. We are expected to hear from President Trump in
about, what, 20 minutes or so, a half past the hour. He's expected to address the country from the briefing room.
He said, in the last few moments, and we brought that to your attention. But let me just reiterate it, calling the curtailing of the nationwide
injunctions by the Supreme Court, that decision a giant win. So, we'll hear from the President in about 20 minutes. Of course, we will bring that to
you.
I do want to stay in the United States, though, because American lawmakers are getting classified briefings from Trump Administration officials on
last weekend's strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. Today is the turn of the U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson emerged out of the meeting saying the
strikes were substantial setback, but there's still really no clear consensus.
Democrats and Republicans came out of Thursday's closed-door session with Senators differing views on how much the strike set back Tehran's nuclear
program? Have a listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. CHRIS MURPHY (D-CT): I walk away from that briefing still under the belief that we have not obliterated the program. The president was
deliberately misleading the public when he said the program was obliterated.
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): I can tell people in South Carolina nobody is going to work in these three sites anytime soon. They're not going to get
into them any time soon, their operational capability was obliterated.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SOARES: Meanwhile, we are getting new and exclusive reporting by CNN about secret diplomatic efforts by the White House to try and bring Iran back to
the negotiating table. CNN's Jennifer Hansler joins us now from Washington, D.C.
And on that last point, just break it down for us in terms of what is being discussed in terms of this diplomatic push and the timing. When did this
start? Was this post the strikes or pre strike say, Jen?
JENNIFER HANSLER, CNN STATE DEPARTMENT REPORTER: Well Isa, these have been going on even before the strikes, and in the wake of those strikes, so as
Israel had launched its military campaign against Iran and after the U.S. took out those unprecedented strikes on those three Iranian nuclear sites,
there were these quiet conversations happening to try to draw Iran back to the negotiating table on a new nuclear deal.
Now we know that there was a secret meeting at the White House just a day before those U.S. strike. So, the meeting was last Friday the strikes were
last Saturday to try to hash out potential proposals that they could give to Tehran. Among these proposals, we've been told, is a potential
investment of up to $30 billion to build a non-enrichment civil nuclear program that would allow them to have nuclear power in Iran, but they would
not allow them to enrich uranium.
Other potential incentives have included sanctions relief and the ability to access $6 billion that are in a foreign investment account that Iran has
had restrictions on using. Now, the one thing that these proposals, the through line here Isa, is they are not giving Iran it's one key demand, and
that is the ability to continue enrichment.
That has been the major sticking point in past rounds of negotiations that Iran has said they need to be able to continue enrichment. The U.S. has
said that is a red line. So, none of these potential preliminary proposals have said Iran could continue with these -- this enrichment program.
Now we should note Isa, the president said that there would be a U.S. Iran meeting next speech, which could be a venue in which the U.S. could present
a proposal, or some sort of a deal, a term sheet. But they Iranians are saying they have no such meeting on the books.
The Iranian foreign minister yesterday saying, he said there's clearly no agreement, arrangement or conversation that has been made to start new
negotiations. However, there is a little bit of hope, as these discussions still have quietly continued, and there is this ceasefire. The fragile
ceasefire between Israel and Iran that is still in place that there could potentially be a resumption of those talks, Isa.
[11:15:00]
SOARES: Yeah, on those talks Jen, I mean, we heard, well, I think it was a two days ago. I've lost track now the dates from President Trump, where he
said, well, we don't really need an agreement. What is the point of an agreement? Can you square that for our viewers, those comments and then
this push, diplomatic push that we are seeing?
JANSLER: Well, that's a great question you said, because we did hear from the president saying he doesn't really care if an agreement is signed. We
heard from his Special Envoy, Steve Witkoff, I think, on the same day, saying they are instead looking for what he called a comprehensive peace
agreement.
So, they're really trying to stop Iran from potentially developing any sort of nuclear weapons program. Now, although the president has downplayed the
idea that this needs to be a formal agreement, there is clearly a desire to have something formally agreed to, even if extends beyond just a nuclear
deal, to ensure in the U.S. mind that this is not something that Iran could continue to development, Isa.
SOARES: Jennifer Hansler, there for the very latest. Thanks very much, Jen. Appreciate it. Well, Iran is questioning its membership in the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty and has moved closer to approving a bill that would suspend cooperation with U.N.'s nuclear watchdog, the IAEA, Iran state
media reported on Thursday.
This is Iran's President says if his country had not responded to Israeli strikes this month, the situation could have escalated into a quote, full
scale and uncontrollable war in the region. He spoke at a video conference in Belarus.
The Iranian President also accused Israel of killing outside the norms of war targeting civilians. Iran's health ministry says more than 600 people
were killed by Israel's military action. Ahead right here on "One World", hunger in Gaza takes the lives of two more children as a controversial aid
group receives millions of dollars in funding. We'll have a live report from Tel Aviv just ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SOARES: Palestinian officials say two more children have died of malnutrition in Gaza, bringing to 66 the number of children dying of hunger
since the start of the Israel Hamas war. And this comes a Trump Administration allocates $30 million to the controversial U.S. and Israeli
backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation.
An Israeli source tells us that the JHF -- GHF, was the only aid group allowed to distribute food in Gaza on Thursday. I want to bring in CNN's
Jeremy Diamond, who'd live for us in Tel Aviv.
[11:20:00]
So, Jeremy, just explain why the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation was the only group allowed to distribute food on Thursday. And you know, clearly speaks
the two deaths we report to the two children speaks the fact that this distribution is simply just not working. So, tie that all together with the
money, of course, that's being given by the White House.
JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN JERUSALEM CORRESPONDENT: Yeah. Well, the Israeli government this week was talking about images of armed men on some of these
aid trucks going into Gaza. We know that there have been incidents where some of these aid trucks have been looted, whether by hungry civilians in
the streets or more frequently, by armed gangs that then take that aid and then try and resell it to people at a much, much inflated price.
Following that, the Israeli government seems to have decided to stop the entry of any aid going into Gaza, besides for the Gaza Humanitarian
Foundation, which is effectively where the aid has been going in Northern Gaza. It's not been going through the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation. It's
been going through the United Nations and some of these other aid groups.
And so, for the time being, at least, the Israeli government has suspended the entry of those types of aid. And at the same time, the United States
and the Israeli government are clearly doubling down on this Gaza Humanitarian Foundation model, with the United States now approving $30
million in redirected U.S. aid funding to this Gaza Humanitarian Foundation.
And when they were asked about whether they would pressure the Israeli government to allow aid into Gaza through other means as well, such as
through those United Nations channels. A state department spokesman responded by saying that everyone should just get on board with this GHF
model, encouraging other countries to also join in in funding the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation.
Now, GHF says that they've distributed some 46 million meals in Gaza over the course of the last month or so, and yet the images that we are seeing
in Gaza reflect the fact that it simply has not been enough to stem the humanitarian crisis that is still roiling the Gaza Strip.
And a lot of that stems from the chaotic distribution that we have seen at some of these aid centers, where, effectively, people just go in, there are
no checks, there is no verification of how many families have gotten aid in the past versus how many are getting the aid now. Less checks than the
United Nations and its agencies actually perform in Gaza.
And in addition to that, almost every single day for the last three weeks, we have seen Palestinians on their way to these GHF sites being shot and
killed by the Israeli military. And that has all unfolded in a way that now we are seeing this report from RSL (ph) an Israeli newspaper which says
that Israeli troops have been has testimonial.
I should say, from Israeli troops who say that they have fired on Palestinians approaching those eight sites and been ordered to by their
commanders, the Israeli military responding to that, saying they're not aware of any such directive, but that they are looking into its Isa.
SOARES: Jeremy Diamond for us in Tel Aviv. Thank you, Jeremy. Well, it appears the U.S. and China have reached a deal to expedite the shipment of
rare earth minerals to the United States. And this follows weeks, if you remember, of negotiations over U.S. access to the vital materials.
China initially suspended exports of the minerals in retaliation over those steep U.S. tariffs that caused major problems for U.S. supply chains, rare
earth minerals are essential in everything from everyday electronics to fighter jets. Our Anna Stewart joins me now. So, Anna, how did we get to
this point. I mean, there have been bickering and dealing behind the scenes on this and finally got a decision?
ANNA STEWART, CNN CORRESPONDENT: And they've been lengthy talks in Geneva in London, but we were under the impression from the president that a deal
had been reached a couple of weeks ago, but now it has been formalized. A text has been signed by will tell you that we haven't actually seen the
test, but we have comment from China's Ministry of Commerce.
They're saying that, you know they will lift this export control on certain goods like rare earths, in return the U.S., it says will cancel a series of
restrict measures taken against China accordingly. Now, speaking to or hearing from U.S. Commerce Secretary, Howard Lutnick, yesterday on
Bloomberg.
It appears that is referring to export controls on things like chip software, jet engines, ethane, these are all -- these all came back in May.
So, this isn't to do with the very steep tariffs earlier in the year, which means there is a deal for -- that is good news.
SOARES: We don't know details of those.
STEWART: We don't necessarily need to know all the details, but the tariffs of 145 percent the U.S. tariffs on China, they could come back on August
the 12th, because that is the deadline for that. It's got it's got very, very complicated, but we have a deal here on rare earth, which is a really
important move for a number of companies and sectors in the U.S.
For China, they should see a lifting of export controls once they deliver the rare earths. But there's still a long way to go in terms of the actual
trade negotiation.
SOARES: What are we hearing from the Chinese side? How are they -- how are they selling this?
STEWART: I have no idea how they're selling it domestically, but I imagine this will be great news.
SOARES: Yeah.
[11:25:00]
STEWART: But for them, they're going to have to actually deliver the rare earths we believe, before they're going to see any lifting in terms of
export restrictions. And also, it's not really clear there have been a number of sort of tiers of export controls from the U.S. It's unlikely that
Nvidia, will be selling its most advanced, AI Blackwell Ultra Chips to China anytime soon.
It's likely to be -- you know, not the most advanced chips, and it may take some time for that to happen. Also, we've had trade talks between these two
countries many times before, and they have fallen apart. So, seeing whether that sticks is another thing.
And also, there's a lot to be done in less than two weeks the liberation so called Liberation Day Tariffs on every country in the world, practically
from the U.S. --
SOARES: I've lost track of where we are.
STEWART: The deadline will end. It's July 9th. It's less than two weeks. Now from Treasury Secretary Scott Besant today speaking, he says he thinks
trade negotiations could be wrapped up by Labor Day. Now, for anyone who isn't from the U.S., that is the 1st of September, so potentially there was
a delay that we are all unaware of.
SOARES: So, we have now seen the United States sign rare deals with Ukraine and with China. I mean, this is pretty significant, though, isn't it? These
-- this tactic, this pressure tactic, however, you may want to see a diplomatic push clearly is working for President Trump, at least for his
for his base, politically, that will play well --
STEWART: Well, with China I mean, it might play well with his base --
SOARES: Yeah.
STEWART: -- China and rare earths, really, this was their leverage, and this was their punishment for the original tariffs. So really, the U.S.
hasn't gained a huge amount there I would say. The U.S. currently has one trade deal with the UK, this sort of rare earth truce with China, but that
is it.
And there is less than two weeks to go till the deadline. We're all aware of July 9th, until we hear otherwise, perhaps we'll get moved to September
1st. It doesn't seem entirely possible that a number of trade deals will be done by two weeks-time.
SOARES: And until we see, obviously the details, right? We don't have a clearer picture. Anna, I appreciate it. Thank you very much indeed. And
that's next right here on "One World" back to our top story. We'll explain how the Supreme Court just handed Donald Trump a lot more power to enact
his agenda.
We're expected to hear from the president next few minutes. You're seeing live images there from very busy White House press room. That's where we're
expecting see the president anytime discussing this ruling. Of course, we'll bring that to you after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[11:30:00]
SOARES: Welcome back to "One World". I'm Isa Soares, coming to you from London. Here are the headlines for you this hour. The U.S. Supreme Court
has backed President Trump's effort to curtail lower court orders that hinder his agenda. However, the justices signaled his plan to end
birthright citizenship may never be enforced.
The court also ruled that parents can opt their children out of classes when LGBT themed books are read. CNN has exclusive reporting on the Trump
Administration's efforts to get Iran back to the negotiating table. According to our sources, officials discussed offering Iran access to
billions of dollars to build a civil nuclear program on the condition that no uranium enrichment take place in Iran.
The Palestinian Health Ministry says two more children have died of malnutrition, and that brings the total to 66 since the Israel-Hamas war
began. An Israeli blockade of aid was only partially relaxed last month, and looting of aid has increased. An Israeli source says only one group,
the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, was allowed to distribute aid this Thursday.
The U.S. and China have finalized a deal on expediting shipments of rare earth minerals to the United States. The minerals are essential in the
production of a wide range of high-tech items from electronics to fighter jets and have been a source of friction between both nations.
I want to return now to our top story of this hour. The conservative dominated U.S. Supreme Court has given a big win to Donald Trump today. The
justices rule the lower courts do not have sweeping power to issue nationwide injunctions that block presidential executive orders.
In essence, the High Court said a federal judge in New York, for example, cannot make a ruling that prevents the government from taking action in
California or Texas or indeed, Florida. The ruling is a massive expansion of the power of the presidency, and severely limits the courts as a check
on that power.
We are expecting to hear from President Trump. Let me bring you the live image, as you can see there, from the White House press room, it's filling
up. That's where we're expecting to see, to hear President Trump following, of course, from this decision from the Supreme Court.
President Trump has been on social media already today, commenting on this. Joining us now to help us through what all this was, is Chief Supreme Court
Analyst, Joan Biskupic, who will, no doubt, will be going through, I imagine, this 100-page ruling. I'm not sure if we have Joan with us yet,
but if we don't let me just try, can we bring up President Trump's comment on social media?
I think it's important for viewers to see it just as we wait, of course, for the president. He took that as a massive win. In fact, let me read it
out, bring it up for you. President Donald Trump on Friday saying on "Truth Social". This is calling the Supreme Court decision curtailing nationwide
injunctions a giant win.
Giant win in the United States Supreme Court. Even the birthright citizenship hoax, he says, has been indirectly hit hard. And then he
congratulated several members of his team, including Attorney General Pam Bondi. Joan Biskupic is with us now. Joan, let me pick up.
We are expecting to hear from President Trump, so apologies if I have to interrupt as you're talking, but he says, a big win, a giant win. How much
of a win is this for the president?
JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN CHIEF SUPREME COURT ANALYST: Well, in the courtroom just now, I have to say that the Liberals all cast, it as a major win for Donald
Trump, not just on this question of birth right citizenship, but of all his policies. Justice Sonia Sotomayor spoke for the liberal dissenters, and she
said, not just this policy, but any policy that the president wants to enforce, even one that appears outright unlawful, will be allowed to go
forward.
She said that this ruling knee caps lower court judges to be able to put any kind of check on the administration's policies. Now I just want to
offer one reality check here. This is going to go back for further hearings.
[11:35:00]
There is a way that possibly it could be stopped, but the breadth of what the Supreme Court majority did today, and the resistance from the dissent
does reinforce what you just read from President Trump, that this was a major win. And I really was surprised at how broadly the court went, given
that this was just a case that was not well briefed.
It was heard just on May 15th. They were under a tight deadline, but six justices, the conservative super majority, all wanted to end the ability of
lower court judges to institute any kind of injunction, any kind of block or pause on policies that would be arguably unconstitutional, as I said,
Justice Sotomayor referred to it as a travesty.
Said it was remarkable what the court was doing. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a very junior justice who was forced, she got a major opinion here. This is
really unusual to have Chief Justice, John Roberts, assign this opinion to her. And I think part of the message was that he wanted it to appear more
couched.
Justice Barrett does tend to try to put up some narrow limits, and she stressed at the outset of her remarks in the courtroom that this is not
commentary on birthright citizenship and whether it should be lifted the way President Donald Trump wants to lift it. She's saying we're not getting
to the merits of it.
But when Justice Sotomayor spoke, she said, make no mistake, this is about that if just one single baby born in America is going to be excluded from
what has been the norm for more than 150 years for automatic citizenship, it is just unconscionable, and the heat and the passion in the courtroom
was palpable in front of the justices, and go ahead and cut me off when you need to, because --
SOARES: No, I didn't need to.
BISKUPIC: OK, great.
SOARES: I did want to ask you, though, because I was speaking Joan to David Weinstein just at the top of the hour.
BISKUPIC: Sure.
SOARES: About the practicality of this and what this will mean to lower courts. And he just talked about the amount of work, the complexities in
making something like this happen.
BISKUPIC: That's exactly right, and that's important to think, thing to bring up, because Justice Barrett left open the door for lower courts to be
able to seize this case and block it in various places. But what Justice Sotomayor said was that she referenced that kind of complexity and said,
right now, you know, no one should leave anything to chance get to lower courts immediately to try to prevent this new policy from taking place
anywhere.
And, you know, there did appear. I have to say I was, you know, in the courtroom until just a few minutes ago. So, I haven't had time to actually
read what they wrote, but I heard how they played it all out. There seems to be a potential off ramp here for lower courts to be able to act but it
sounds incredibly limited, and as you just said, is also complicated and it might not actually work.
Justice -- it was sort of almost a call to arms that Justice Sotomayor was issuing, saying, act quickly and act now, or our way of life in America
will change dramatically.
SOARES: Can I -- I will ask you about that some of the other rulings that we're hearing today is a kind of blockbuster day at a Supreme Court today.
BISKUPIC: Sure.
SOARES: But let me ask you first about on a very practical level, if you're, you know, if you're a non-citizen United States, and you have a
baby born in the United States, then how do you interpret this? How do -- what do this mean in real terms?
BISKUPIC: In real terms, right now, in this moment, there is a very strong chance that, that baby will not have automatic citizenship. That's
something that's going to have to be worked out immediately in lower courts, because right now, this Supreme Court has lifted those stays that
were preventing it from taking effect.
Now does that mean that a child born tomorrow is will suddenly be affected? I don't yet know. But what had been certain until this moment, at 10:00
a.m. Eastern was that there were court orders in effect, blocking President Trump's very radical policy here.
I mean, we just have to, like, say out loud that this is a radical policy because it flies in the face of what was common understanding for more than
a century, and that the Supreme Court itself had said was common understanding of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution about
automatic citizenship.
So, it's a really dramatic policy that he's trying to carry out, and until 10:00 a.m. Eastern he had been blocked from doing that.
[11:40:00]
Those stays, that's the legal term, those postponements of him, his ability to enforce that order have now been lifted, and you know things aren't
going to happen immediately for a child that's born in the next hour or two, but there is a sense of urgency that is now much more palpable than it
would have been just a few hours ago.
SOARES: Let's park the nationwide the ruling on nationwide injunctions to the side for just a moment, Joan.
BISKUPIC: Sure.
SOARES: Because we've had two others. Talk us through this, the free speech coalition versus Paxton. That is the Texas ruling, right? What has come out
of that?
BISKUPIC: OK. That one just was issued by Justice Clarence Thomas. He wrote for the majority, allowing Texas to put the age verification requirement
onto any adult, anyone who would access the site. And what the challengers had said was that, you know, this kind of a requirement, understandably, is
trying to keep minors away from pornographic sites, but it's so strict that it impinges on adult speech rights.
And that one, you know, the way he interpreted it was a win for the state and for other states. And then another one that you might be interested in
is the one having to do with LGBTQ materials in the classroom.
SOARES: Yeah.
BISKUPIC: And that another reason I want to jump ahead to that one before Donald Trump starts speaking, is that provoked another heated dissent from
the bench, just to remind you how that works up there, usually the justice who's in the majority will read the opinion from the bench.
And in rare situations, a dissenting justice will feel so strongly about the wrong turn that the court has taken that he or she will comment. And
these days, I have to say it's usually a she, because it's one of the three liberals. And again, it was Justice Sonia Sotomayor who said, first, let me
Justice Alito wrote for the majority there.
And what he said was that, parents with any kind of religious objection to having their children exposed in any way to materials about gay rights or
transgender lives, that they should be able to have those materials kept from the child, that the child should be able to opt out of going to the
classes in which anything is referred to.
And he started reading from some of the material, some of the more provocative gay rights materials there and the trans materials right there
in the courtroom. And then Justice Sotomayor, again, speaking for the dissenting liberal, said, you know, let me do a reality check here.
What this is really about is tolerance and acceptance, and it's not impinging on religious rights, it's impinging much more on just an
acceptance of the LGBTQ people.
SOARES: Yeah.
BISKUPIC: Thanks --
SOARES: Yeah. And this, of course, raises other objections and other concerns of other school curriculum, right?
BISKUPIC: Absolutely.
SOARES: If it starts here, where do we stop on religious grounds? And that is the huge concern.
BISKUPIC: Yeah.
SOARES: Joan, appreciate it. Talking through this a lot for you. Thank you very much indeed. We are keeping a close eye, of course, on President
Trump, who is expected to speak at any moment, as Joan was laying out some of the wins for the president.
Of course, the president has already taken social media today touted what he called a giant win, and that's regarding the first ruling that was
handed down today by the Supreme Court, and that was on the curtailing nationwide injunctions. He said, giant win in the United States Supreme
Court, even the birthright citizenship hoax, he said, has been indirectly hit hard.
But that wasn't what was discussed here. It was simply the injunctions. Of course, we're keeping an eye on that. Soon as we hear from the president,
we'll bring that to you. Donald Trump, meantime, is forgoing his usual weekend golf game so he can stay in Washington plenty going on and push
Congress to get his budget passed.
Republicans in the Senate had hoped to vote on the budget bill on Saturday, but their plans had been thrown for a loop after the Senate parliamentary
tossed out some parts of the bill. Some Republicans have voiced deep concerns about cuts to Medicaid through -- though, Trump though says they
are just grandstanding. Congress is trying to get the bill done before the July 4th holiday break. Have a listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOHN THUNE (R-SD): We're plowing forward, and when we actually get on it still is an open question, but rest assured, we will.
REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA): -- make it harder to get this passed by July 4th. Well, it doesn't make it easier, but you know me, hope springs eternal, and
we're going to work around the clock and try to meet that deadline. That's we should do it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SOARES: Let's get more on this. Annie Grayer joins us now, tracking the very latest. And Annie, we are, like I said, waiting for the president. So,
apologies in advance. They have to interrupt you. Just talk us through then what we're likely to see, given the divisions here?
[11:45:00]
ANNIE GRAYER, CNN REPORTER: The divisions are strong, and it's unclear if any side is willing to give in. What's happening in the Senate right now is
Republicans are trying to pass Trump's entire domestic agenda with only Republican votes, and that process requires a lot of specific parliamentary
steps.
And the parliamentarian who's overseeing it dealt Republicans a massive blow yesterday, saying that a key Medicaid tax provision in the bill could
not be in its final version, so that has left Senate Republicans scrambling, trying to figure out what they can include that can still make
it to the floor and meet this self-imposed timeline from the White House of July 4th.
But even before the parliamentarian dealt these blows to the Republican Senate, there were still deep divisions on just the Senate side of what was
going to be in this bill, from how much to cut Medicaid to how much rural hospitals were going to suffer from this to the energy tax credits that so
many Republicans in their states benefit from.
So, the divisions were already deep. This is just the latest blow that Republicans have had to face. And remember, if the Republicans in the
Senate are able to pass this bill in the next few days, the version that they have agreed to is very different than what the House had passed just a
few weeks ago.
So, the Senate is going to have to kick it back over to the House. There are many Republicans in the House who are very upset by what they're
hearing is in the final version of the Senate's bill. So, you just start to look at the calendar and hear about all the concerns around this and really
scratch your head about, is July 4th a reasonable goal here?
SOARES: It doesn't sound like it is at this point, but the president, it seems, is staying in Washington, of course, to keep pressure on those
Senate Republicans. Annie Grayer, appreciate it breaking all down for us. Thank you, Annie. We are going to keep an eye on those live pictures as
soon as we see the president.
We'll bring that to you. We're going to take a short break, though, in the meantime, see you on the other side.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SOARES: President Trump is speaking. Let's listen in.
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Supreme Court has delivered a monumental victory for the Constitution, the separation of
powers and the rule of law in striking down the excessive use of nationwide injunctions to interfere with the normal functioning of the executive
branch, the Supreme Court has stopped the presidency itself.
That's what they've done. And really, it's been an amazing period of time this last hour. There are people elated all over the country. I've seen
such happiness and spirit. Sometimes you don't see that, but this case is very important. I was elected on a historic mandate, but in recent months,
we've seen a handful of radical left judges effectively try to overrule the rightful powers of the president to stop the American people from getting
the policies that they voted for in record numbers.
It was a grave threat to democracy, frankly, and instead of merely ruling on the immediate cases before them, these judges have attempted to dictate
the law for the entire nation. In practice, this meant that if any one of the nearly 700 federal judges disagreed with the policy of a duly elected
President of the United States, he or she could block that policy from going into effect, or at least delay it for many years, tie it up in the
court system.
This was a colossal abuse of power, which never occurred in American history prior to recent decades, and we've been hit with more nationwide
injunctions than were issued in the entire 20th century together.
[11:50:00]
Think of it, more than the entire 20th century, me. I'm grateful to the Supreme Court for stepping in and solving this very, very big and complex
problem, and they've made it very simple. I want to thank Justice Barrett, who wrote the opinion brilliantly, as well as Chief Justice Roberts and
Justices Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Thomas.
Great people. Thanks for this decision, and thanks to this decision, we can now promptly file to proceed with numerous policies that have been wrongly
enjoined on a nationwide basis, and some of the cases we're talking about would be ending birthright citizenship, which now comes to the fore.
That was meant for the babies of slaves. It wasn't meant for people trying to scam the system and come into the country on a vacation. This was, in
fact, it was the same date, the exact same date the end of the Civil War. It was meant for the babies of slaves, and is so clean and so obvious, but
this lets us go there and finally win that case, because hundreds of thousands of people are pouring into our country under birth right
citizenship, and it wasn't meant for that reason.
Was meant for the babies of slaves. So, thanks to this decision, we can now properly file to proceed with these numerous policies and those that have
been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis, including birthright citizenship, ending sanctuary city funding, suspending refugee
resettlement, freezing unnecessary funding, stopping federal taxpayers from paying for transgender surgeries and numerous other priorities of the
American people.
We have so many of them. I have a whole list. I'm not going to bore you, and I'm going to have Pam get up and say a few words, but there's really,
she could talk as long as she wants, because it's a very important decision. This is a decision that covers a tremendous amount of territory,
but I want to just thank again, the Supreme Court for this ruling.
It's a giant. It's a giant, and they should be very proud, and our country should be very proud of the Supreme Court today. And with that, I'd like
you to listen to the words of Pam Bondi. She's an incredible attorney general. We're very proud of her. And as you know, Todd Blanche is with us,
and we have so many others that worked on this case and other cases, and I think they're doing a great job. Pam, please say a few words.
PAM BONDI, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: Thank you, President Trump, thank you for fighting for all Americans. Americans are finally getting what they voted
for. No longer will we have rogue judges striking down President Trump's policies across the entire nation, no longer.
Today in the six three opinion justice Barrett correctly holds that the district court lacks authority to enter nationwide or universal
injunctions. These lawless injunctions gave relief to everyone in the world, instead of the parties before the court, as the Supreme Court held
today, they turned district courts into the imperial judiciary, active liberal justices, judges have used these injunctions to block virtually all
of President Trump's policies.
To put this in perspective, there are 94 federal judicial districts. Five of those districts throughout this country held 35 of the nationwide
injunctions. Think about those 94 districts and 35 out of the 40 opinions with nationwide injunctions came from five liberal districts in this
country, no longer, no longer.
These injunctions have blocked our policies from tariffs to military readiness to immigration to foreign affairs, fraud, abuse and many other
issues. The judges have tried to seize the executive branch's power, and they cannot do that, no longer, no longer and on immigration, on a side
note today marks 2711 arrest on these terrorists and these gangs.
Total arrest today with HSI investigations and thank you Stephen Miller, thank you to Homeland Security. Thank you to everyone working hand in hand
with the FBI on all of these transnational gangs. TDA has been a huge terror to our country, as well as MS-13, as well as Sinaloa cartels, no
longer, no longer.
These injunctions have allowed district court judges to be emperors. They vetoed all of President Trump's power, and they cannot do that. This has
been a bipartisan problem that has lasted five presidential terms, five different presidents, and it has ended today.
[11:55:00]
We will continue to fight for President Trump's policies. I want to thank the Office of White House Counsel Dave Warrington. You and your staff have
been incredible. Our solicitor general's office, John Sauer, Sarah Harris and Todd Blanche and Emil Bove. Todd is going to say a few words, because
we've had another major ruling today on transgender books and some other great wins that we've had, but no longer will they have this power in our
country.
It is the president's authority under his executive branch to do everything to fight for the American people, and he will continue to do that. That's
why he was overwhelmingly elected. Thank you.
TODD BLANCHE, U.S. DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL: Thank you. Today is a great day for the rule of law. It's a great day for the Justice Department, and it's
one that's been a long time coming and one that every American should have been waiting for with bated breath.
And so, I echo what the president said, and Attorney General Bondi that the Supreme Court did a great thing today, not only for this administration,
but for every American in this country. If not for the injunctions case, we would be here talking about another great decision that came down today,
the trans books case, which restores parents' rights to decide their child's education.
Seems like a basic idea, but it took the Supreme Court to set the record state, and we thank them for that. And now that ruling allows parents to
opt out of dangerous trans ideology and make the decisions for their children that they believe is correct. And so, we thank the Supreme Court
for that.
There's been multiple decisions over the past several weeks that just show why this injunction, why this nationwide injunction ban had to happen. For
example, what I mean by that is local district court judges issuing decisions that are clearly contrary to law just because they don't like the
policy of President Trump, and when it gets to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court has to correct it, but that takes time.
The Attorney General thanked our lawyers, and I'll do it again. Our lawyers are working 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to fight these injunctions and
to emergency appeals, emergency stays, going back to this court judge asking them to change their view. And so, their hard work is really paying
off today.
But over the past few weeks, we had a stay of an order that prevented DHS from moving aliens to a third country. We had a stay of an order that
stopped the Department of Defense from implementing military readiness the EO that President Trump signed. We had another stay of an order forcing
reinstatement of fired executive branch employees, entirely within the president and Article Two, his right to do.
We had a stay of, as you all know, of numerous DOGE cases, and again, every one of those stays requires a tremendous amount of work and effort by the
lawyers and parties involved. They should be doing other work. They should be doing the work that the president and this administration demands, and
has a right to demand and not fighting these local judges who don't make decisions based on the law.
They make decisions because they just simply don't agree with the administration's decision about a policy, and that's wrong. Thank you.
TRUMP: Any questions? Yes, Pam, please go ahead.
BONDI: Go ahead.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Sure. Thank you, Madam Attorney General. So, as you know, the Supreme Court did not rule on the underlying constitutionality of
the president's birthright citizenship order. So, what is the plan now? Are you going to try to implement the EO, just in states where there isn't a
legal challenge?
BONDI: Yes, a birthright citizenship will be decided in October, in the next session by the Supreme Court, unless it comes down in the next few
minutes. I guess it could come down there still. I think they're still deliberating right now on some cases, as you heard, we just got transgender
books, which is a huge win, but most likely that will be decided in October, in the next session.
However, it indirectly impacts us, because, as you correctly pointed out, if there's a birthright citizenship case in Oregon, it will only affect the
plaintiff in Oregon, not the entire country. So yes, it's indirectly, but that's pending litigation, and we're waiting on that in the next term.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And how concerned are you that the Supreme Court will come back and determine that the executive order is unconscious?
BONDI: -- we're very confident in the Supreme Court, but again, its pending litigation, and that will directly be determined in October, but it
indirectly impacts every case in this country, and we're thrilled with their decision today, Peter (ph).
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Madam Attorney General, thank you for being here to take our questions. A couple questions to the both of you. The EO goes had a 30-
day grace period before it goes into effect. Is there any thought about trying to make it effective immediately within that period of time.
BONDI: We're going to follow the law, we're going to make those decisions, and we're going to do what's right in the bounds of the law.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And then the DOJ didn't ask the justices --
END
