Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

Breyer on Court Expanding Presidential Immunity; Lawmakers Face Off with Frustrated Voters. Aired 10:30-11a ET

Aired March 19, 2025 - 10:30   ET

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

[10:30:00]

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: We're back for more of my interview with the retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. We've heard from some of President Trump's closest allies, Justice Breyer, including some within his own administration, including the White House, who say they don't care what the courts think and that the president can simply ignore them. How dangerous is that?

STEPHEN BREYER, AUTHOR, "READING THE CONSTITUTION" AND RETIRED SUPREME COURT JUSTICE: Well, there was a president who did say something like that in around the 1830s, I think, when the court decided that Northern Georgia, under our treaties, belonged to the Cherokee Indians. And supposedly he said something like, perhaps not these exact words, but John Marshall, the chief justice, made his decision. Now, let him enforce it. OK?

And Joseph Story, a great Supreme Court judge, wrote to Marshall, and he said, oh, dear, I despair. This document, the Constitution of the United States, it's gone. Well, after a while, I think it was South Carolina, but I'm not sure, said, this is a great idea. Let's not enforce the Constitution or the federal law, and we will not send to Washington the money that we owe them for customs duties.

Well, Jackson began to think, maybe I should think twice about this. That was a bad day for law, and for the rule of law in the United States, and then, we come to where we are now.

BLITZER: Are we nearing a constitutional crisis right now?

BREYER: No one really knows. No one really knows. People have different views on that. And the best thing, I think, for the judges is you follow the law. You simply follow the law. And that is what they try to do.

BLITZER: But what if the president of the United States doesn't want to follow the law, the Constitution, the way it's written, and has other ideas?

BREYER: I hate to tell you how I've been trained. I've been trained not to consider difficult hypotheticals and you consider a case when it's in front of you. And as long as people are appealing, as long as people use the legal process as it is intended to be used in this document, it says right here, judges shall hold their offices during good behavior, as long as they follow the traditions of 200 and more years, we won't have that hypothetical.

BLITZER: Republicans, as you know, have complained about district court judges blocking Trump's agenda with nationwide injunctions, just as Democrats complained about nationwide injunctions during the Biden and Obama administrations. There's been a big increase in these injunctions over the last 10 to 15 years. Do you see problems here with that?

BREYER: I can't go into specific cases for this reason against the ethical rules of the court. But the reason for that, and you would see it if you had been there for a few years, you would see that so often what you read in the newspaper is not exactly what happened because they have to get their papers out fast.

But when you decide a case, particularly in the Supreme Court, but in all the courts, you read these documents called briefs, that the different parties file documents and they file arguments. They're written. They're called briefs. I don't know why they call briefs.

BLITZER: (INAUDIBLE) Briefs too.

BREYER: Yes. You can file one.

BLITZER: Right.

BREYER: Anyone can file one. And I don't know why they're called brief. They're not so brief.

BLITZER: They're not brief at all usually.

[10:35:00]

BREYER: No, no. And then, we have a real argument. And every so often, in fact far more often than you think, you start out in a case with an opinion. And by the time you read all those briefs, you may have a different opinion.

BLITZER: Yes.

BREYER: And you discuss it with your colleagues. And you listen to what they say. And what you end up with is something that the people wait for, which is the court, not me, not Justice Scalia, who is a good friend, not Justice O'Connor, not their individual views of the Constitution, but the court's view. And that's a product of discussion, reading, writing.

Look, politics is a matter of, Harold Wilson said, a week is a long time in politics. It's not a long time in the judiciary. Months. It may take months to get to the bottom of a case and to really understand it. And what you think after those months is often, more often than you think, not what you started out thinking. And that's why you have to read and --

BLITZER: But what we're seeing now, could this encourage litigants, in your opinion, to shop around potentially for a judge they like? BREYER: Well, they always have. They've done that anyway. And it's not a good idea. And no, you -- that's why there are appeals courts. That's why there is a Supreme Court. Judges are human, and they can make mistakes. And I'd hate to say that probably some of the things I've written, I might look back at them and say, well, maybe I shouldn't have or whatever.

BLITZER: With hindsight?

BREYER: With hindsight.

BLITZER: Yes.

BREYER: But you don't usually. You move on. You move on as a judge to the next case, to the next case, because your job is basically to make a decision on the law about the case. And of course, people will not agree. Of course, there are those who will say no. Of course, there are. And then you have to figure out, as the judge, being willing to take criticism from everybody.

BLITZER: The Supreme Court handed down several major rulings last year, including that decision greatly expanding presidential immunity. Very, very significant decision. When you and I spoke here in the Situation Room last March, you declined to weigh in on that case because it was still pending. Would you care to share your thoughts about that decision now?

BREYER: I teach about it and it has several parts to it. It says the president does not have immunity when the -- I think the matter has nothing to do with the presidential power, when he has some exclusive power, which is a very few things. He does have immunity and then it's -- in my opinion, it waffles a bit, it doesn't make a definite decision in that vast area where there's presidential decision.

BLITZER: Looking down the road, because this is a very sensitive moment in our country's history, are you optimistic or pessimistic?

BREYER: I tend to be more optimistic for a reason.

BLITZER: What's the reason?

BREYER: The reason is, what we're talking about, I usually talk about it at greater length. To who? To students. High school students. Seventh graders sometimes. You know, the seventh graders are looking out the window. But you know what I tell them? They say, what can they do? I tell them when I worked in the Senate on the staff, what Senator Kennedy used to tell his staff, he used to say, look, don't go out there for credit. If you succeed, there'll be plenty of credit. And if you don't succeed, who wants it?

Here's what you do. You're having opposition. You find somebody who thinks the opposite of you. And you think that person is intelligent, and you go talk to them. Wait. Don't talk too much. Listen. And listen, and eventually, they will say something that you really agree with. And as soon as they do, you say, what a good idea you have. And you try to get 30 percent of what you want. Don't hold out for 100 percent. No, don't please all your followers who want 100 percent. You won't get it. But you take the 30 percent you can get.

Now, why am I optimistic? It's not because of what I just said. It's because those 7th graders who are looking out the window suddenly are not looking out the window. They're interested. They want to hear what they can do. They want to hear about this. And it's the look in their eye when I talk about this document, which is theirs now, the Constitution, when I talk about what used to be in the Senate, how you talk to people who disagree with you, how you listen to them. And that's what we try to achieve, you know, in the conference.

And that -- the look in their eye when I talk about that, those 7th graders or high school students, that's what makes me optimistic about this document and this country.

BLITZER: It makes me optimistic that this is such a great country. We will do well down the road and we're watching it all very closely. Justice Breyer, thanks so much for coming in. Really appreciate it.

BREYER: Thank you.

BLITZER: And congratulations on the book, "Reading the Constitution: Why I Chose Pragmatism, Not Textualism." And we're going to we're going to continue this conversation down the road.

BREYER: Good.

BLITZER: Don't leave yet.

BREYER: All right.

BLITZER: And just ahead, Pamela, we're watching a lot of other news as well.

[10:40:00]

PAMELA BROWN, CNN ANCHOR: Yes. We have some lawmakers coming up on the show. I'm going to speak to Democratic Congressman Glenn Ivey, who bore the brunt of voter frustrations at a town hall just last night. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: Anger, outrage, and demands for accountability. That was the scene at town halls across the country yesterday. Lawmakers from Washington State to Nebraska to Maryland facing off with frustrated constituents. Pressing them on everything from DOGE to Democrats plans to fight back. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What people of America see, what people of Eastern Washington sees, President Trump delivering on his promises. And so --

[10:45:00]

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We need to find out what Elon Musk is doing and how we can stop him.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Would you mind telling your colleagues in Washington that when they're burning down this house, there's people still inside?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We feel that Democrats in Congress are against us. This must change, Congressman. This must change.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What are you going to stand up for?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: And joining us now is Democratic Congressman Glenn Ivey of Maryland. He sits on the House Appropriations and Ethics Committee. And, Congressman, you held a town hall yesterday with more than 900 attendees. There was a lot of motion there. What was your takeaway, and what actions are you going to take to address your constituents' concerns?

REP. GLENN IVEY (D-MD), APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE AND ETHICS COMMITTEE: Well, I think I was the last clip that you played there. People were angry. They were furious, really. And rightly so. I mean, they've been attacked by the Trump administration, people have been forced out of jobs that they've been doing well for sometimes decades, people on the other end of that are not getting the government services that they'd like and need to have and for no apparent reason. So, there's a lot of frustration with that. I think there's a lot of frustration too with the inability to stop Trump as quickly as people would like.

So, we talked a lot about the court cases last night. And frankly, they are going very well. I think they put the Trump administration on their heels to some extent with all of these injunctions that have been put in place and now some orders to reinstate, I think in the latest one, 28,000 employees who were fired.

But, you know, for people who -- you know, the wolf is at the door, they're about to lose their house, their livelihoods are at stake, there's concern, there's anger, and there's frustration.

BROWN: Certainly, there's concern with DOGE and what's happening, but there's a lot of concern about Democrats not doing enough.

IVEY: Yes.

BROWN: You heard that from these constituents, saying that Democrats aren't fighting for them, that Democrats are being too polite. This moment in particular stuck out to me. Let's play it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you for being polite with us. But when it comes to fighting these fights, we need you to be a little bit less polite, a little bit more hell no instead of a little bit no.

IVEY: Fair enough.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And there may be a time when you and other congresspeople need to do civil disobedience. You need to be arrested.

IVEY: Sure.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And I will go with you. I will stand next to you and be arrested.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And I was going to ask if you were going to be willing to be arrested. But I'm going to ask you a different question --

IVEY: I'd be willing to be arrested again. Yes. I've done it before.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: So, you're willing to be arrested? What law were you willing to break to get arrested?

IVEY: Yes. If it gets to that. That goes all the way back to South Africa and the protests that we did. The first one I did was when I was in college and we shut down an administrative building. But --

BROWN: But what are you willing to do? Are you willing to do something now to risk getting arrested?

IVEY: Well, potentially, but I think the key is to make sure it's strategic and well done. I mean, for -- if you look at the civil rights movement, for example, they were very strategic in how they targeted the points where they were going to commit the -- you know, conduct these protests, the demands that they made that were in connection with that. I think we have to do that here as well, too.

The other part we need to make sure is --

BROWN: Civil disobedience. You're willing to do civil disobedience?

IVEY: It can be civil disobedience. It can be just regular protests and rallies. We didn't do a lot of those around town. But I think we need to accelerate those. But I think the key point though is we got to build the number of people who are participating.

So, we've done several of these, you know, in front of USAID or NOAA or other departments and agencies. But if you remember back to the Black Lives Matter protests, we had thousands of peoples coming out for those protests across the country. I think we need to build that out and make sure we're doing more with those.

But in the interim though, here in Congress, we have votes that we can have opportunities to have an impact on. Last Friday was one of those with respect to the CR. I think we missed a big opportunity there.

BROWN: Right.

IVEY: We've got some more coming up with respect to the budget reconciliation and the like. Those are tougher because those are just simple majorities as opposed to a 60 vote -- the cloture vote that you need in the Senate. But when we have these opportunities, we've got to make the most of them. And I think that's a big piece of what people were frustrated about was what happened last week.

BROWN: Right. And, you know, you mentioned that you've gone out in front of some of these agencies and protested. Clearly constituents are saying that's not enough. We want to see more from our Democratic leaders. They're upset. I mean, you see the historic low, 29 percent approval rating. And you've actually said that it might be time for Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer to step aside. Who should replace him?

IVEY: Well, that's not my call. I'm in the House. But I mean, I think the bottom line was a frustration --

BROWN: Right. But I mean, there have been calls for AOC to, you know, primary him and so forth. Would you like to see that?

IVEY: Well, I think that's four years away. But -- and the point we got last night was they can't wait till 2026. They need help now. And so, I think the focus needs to be on what we do now. For example, I've got a Medicaid roundtable we're going to do later today that tries to draw attention to that because we're going to have these individual votes coming up. And I think it's important for us to see if we can have an impact on those.

[10:50:00]

So, for example, some of the places where you've seen Republicans backing away from what Trump's doing are districts where Harris carried the majority in those districts. I think if we target those, and we are, and the DCCC and Leader Jeffries, let's focus on the districts where we can win those and get the majority back come 2026. But if we can change the votes now that are leading up to that because they're starting to be concerned about their political support, we can have an impact on these votes as they're coming through now.

So, I think the future is now with respect to trying to have an impact on these things. I'm all for the community protests and impact. I'm all for the courts. But we've got a job to do in Congress and I think if we step up and get more coordinated and enhance our communications and stick together, we can get those things done.

BROWN: All right. Congressman Glenn Ivey, thank you for coming on the show.

IVEY: Thank you.

BROWN: we appreciate it.

IVEY: Thanks for having me.

BROWN: Thank you. And we'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:55:00]

BROWN: And now, to some new details on a story we brought you yesterday right here in the Situation Room. We introduced you to Terry Uniter, an Army veteran in Maryland who is dealing with the fallout of the massive government job cuts firsthand. He was set to deploy to Japan for a new job this month. He packed up his stuff, put his house up for rent, and pulled his son out of school only to be told hours before his flight it's a no go. He now says that he is living out of suitcases and an empty house stuck in limbo. Here's what he told me.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TERRY UNITED, RETIRED ARMY VETERAN AND NEW JOB PUT ON HOLD DUE TO GOVERNMENT CUTS: 24 hours before flying to Japan. They told me, hey, that exemption that we thought that you had, it's not good. And to make it worse, 12 hours before flying they contacted me again to say, well, actually, we had a wires crossed. You're good to proceed. And then, five hours before flying, they were like, hey, remember what we just told you like a few hours ago? We're sorry. Actually, you're still not good to come.

Just one person I've been very, like, extremely disappointed with. And that's my congressman, Andy Harris.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: Now, Congressman Harris' office is denying this, that it didn't help Uniter, saying in a statement to CNN, the truth is we actually made several attempts to help this constituent, but he failed to respond to our request for the documentation required for us to make a request on his behalf. We are still awaiting his response to our office so that we can look into his case.

And we asked Terry about Harris' version of events, and he told us that he did receive a few phone calls from the congressman's office, including one that was apologetic and offers of assistance, but he added that he felt staffers were dismissive, and at this point, he would be seeking help elsewhere.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:00:00]