Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

Supreme Court Limits Power of Lower Court to Stop Trump Orders; Supreme Court Limits Use of Nationwide Injunctions; Supreme Court Rules on Whether School Can Allow Opt-Outs for LGBTQ+ Books. Aired 10:30-11a ET

Aired June 27, 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]

DEBORAH PEARLSTEIN, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW PROFESSOR, PRINCETON UNIVERSITY: Of the politics, not the end of it.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: And before we go to break, a quick question, Elie. A practical question. For children born in the United States whose parents are undocumented immigrants, how will this affect them?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST AND FORMER ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NY: I can't answer that because I don't think anybody knows at the moment. We are in this state of flux. What Donald Trump is trying to do is not end birthright citizenship, but say essentially it only counts if your parents are citizens or they're here lawfully and permanently green card holders who have permanent status. And this is exactly, Wolf, part of the problem that the dissent complains about.

Parents and children don't necessarily know their status as of right now, unless each of the tens or hundreds of thousands of them goes into court and gets their own individual ruling. So, it really leaves us on a crucial issue, citizenship in a state of flux.

I do hope, if I can sermonize for a moment, that I hope this inspires the appellate courts, including the Supreme Court to move a little more quickly when we get issues of this importance. I mean, I think that this decision will have that effect. When you see an issue like this where we obviously need nationwide uniformity, camp, different rules in different states. There are ways that you can skip the mid- level court of appeals and go right up to the Supreme Court. I think this is a good candidate for that. So, hopefully, the appeals courts realize that they need to move quicker than normal on this one.

PAMELA BROWN, CNN ANCHOR: Yes. And you'll recall during the oral argument, Justice Sotomayor was very outspoken with some of her questions, and one of the hypotheticals she put out there was, well, what if a president tells the military to go to everyone's home and take away guns as a way to combat gun violence? Are you going to expect everyone to then file a petition? I know there's the question of class action lawsuits. She has a dissent, a new dissent that we're going to tackle and learn about right after this break. So, stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:35:00]

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN Breaking News.

BROWN: And we are covering our breaking news, the Supreme Court leaving the path for Trump to ban birthright citizenship and limiting the authority for judges to issue nationwide injunctions, a huge ruling with major ramifications and impact on every single American.

I want to go to Paula Reid now to get more on the dissent from Justice Sotomayor. And she read parts of that dissent from the bench, which is a rare move, Paula.

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Yes, it was clearly very important to her to outline and articulate why she objected to the majority's opinion, known during arguments and throughout this litigation.

The arguments in favor of nationwide injunctions are usually something along the lines of uniformity. They want to have one policy that governs the entire country. You don't want to have different states and districts subject to different laws. The other argument is that a judge would be able to block an unconstitutional policy immediately.

Now, in her dissent, she touches on some of these things. She said, quote, "No right is safe in the new legal regime the court creates. With the stroke of a pen, the president has made a solemn mockery of our Constitution. Rather than stand firm, the court gives way. Because such complicity should know no place in our system, I dissent."

She goes on to say, you know, we've talked a little bit about, and you've talked with your panel about how this doesn't just affect President Trump. This is for all future presidents. They can put forth a policy that a single judge cannot block even if it appears to be unconstitutional. She writes, today, the threat is to birthright citizenship. Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from law abiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship. The majority holds an absent, cumbersome class action litigation courts cannot completely enjoin even such plainly unlawful policies unless doing so is necessary to afford the formal party's complete relief.

So, she's saying, look, going forward, presidents are going to be able to put forth clearly unconstitutional policies, and it's going to be difficult outside of a class action to have a remedy. Now, I actually spoke to a senior Justice Department official right before the oral arguments and asked him about these arguments in favor of nationwide injunctions. And their response, they said, often these district court judges though don't get the constitution correct. They pointed specifically to President Trump's ban on transgender military service members, which was subject to a nationwide injunction.

But then, by the time it got to the Supreme Court, they let it go forward. So, that's how they see this. They said that they don't believe that it's fair to say that you're going to have clearly unconstitutional policies blocked because they believe these lower court judges may not view the constitutional validity of policies the same way the Supreme Court, the final word, views these.

Now, I want to say one of the biggest cases, and looking back at my notes that could be impacted here, is a case out of California that deals with the administration's effort to do mass firings. That was blocked and I've been told repeatedly by the president's lawyers, that is one of the cases that could be directly impacted by today's ruling. And of course, if that case is impacted so are thousands, potentially of federal jobs.

BROWN: All right. A lot coming out of the Supreme Court today on its final day. Many consequential cases, including the birthright citizenship case. And we should just remind our viewers that the justices today, Elie Honig, they did not rule on the constitutionality of birthright. That is something that could -- will likely end up before the Supreme Court down the road perhaps in a few years.

But all of this raises the question of what does it mean for all of these executive orders that President Trump has issued since he's been in office, really a record number and the nationwide injunctions on all of those. I mean, where do we stand with all of this? Because it seems like for the reading that the opinion, it's not completely clear

HONIG: Right. So, first of all, we actually do have a hint in here about the underlying birthright citizenship question. The majority, the six justices, the majority say, we're not addressing that today. The three in the dissent say it's unconstitutional.

[10:40:00]

So, when this case gets back up to the Supreme Court, there's at least three no votes. There's at least three votes against Donald Trump. The other thing to keep in mind is, let's just pull the Donald Trump out of all of this. This is really about the presidency. I mean, Joe Biden, Barack Obama hated this practice by district court judges. They railed against it. Joe Biden's solicitor general Elizabeth Prelogar, who's one of the most celebrated liberal Supreme Court activists -- or excuse me, advocates in the country is against these district court nationwide injunctions. So -- yes.

BROWN: I just want to follow up because I actually think this is a really important note. The order will not go into effect for 30 days, according to this opinion.

HONIG: Right.

BROWN: Which means it gives time for potential legal challenges, including class actions representing large numbers of people who would be affected by the executive order. So, within that 30 days then, if you don't -- if you're not part of a class action or you're not a plaintiff bringing a suit, does that mean --

HONIG: So, I'll tell you two things that might happen. BROWN: OK.

HONIG: One is we could see massive class actions brought on behalf -- and class actions can have thousands and thousands of people in it. You could try to bring a class action if you were challenging this on behalf of every child born to a non-citizen in the United States. That's number one. The other thing that I think could happen is they're -- if I was in the position of somebody challenging birthright citizenship, I would make a motion to take this -- the actual birthright issue directly to the Supreme Court, to get there as quickly as possible, to skip the middle levels. The Supreme Court does take cases like that once in a while.

So, it wouldn't surprise me if in the next 30 days we see a motion made by one of these plaintiffs to get this right up to the Supreme Court, meaning the actual birthright issue, and they'll say, this is time sensitive. This has massive nationwide implications and we need uniformity. So, I actually think the Supreme Court just invited a lot more of those motions over the coming years.

DAVID CHALIAN CNN POLLICAL DIRECTOR AND CNN WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF: So, are you saying that in 30 days you don't think this order start -- will start being implemented in some places in this country?

HONIG: Well, so what the Supreme Court says here is everything's on hold for 30 days. The Supreme Court can't start, right? So, yes, everything's on hold for 30 days. But 30 days is --

BROWN: But after that, I mean, if you're --

HONIG: Then it's chaos.

BROWN: If you're a non-citizen who has a baby here and you weren't part of a class action lawsuit, or you didn't file before the courts, what does that mean?

HONIG: Yes, it means you don't know.

BROWN: What does that mean for that baby?

HONIG: It means your status is in flux. It means it depends on maybe which state you are in, depending on which cases have been filed, whether you are a -- obviously, whether you're a party to of these cases. But the only real answer I can give is it's flux and it's chaos.

PEARLSTEIN: Well, this I think is in part why I was sort of suggesting hesitation before about who -- so not even the majority of the court says, when they say, you know, the injunction can only be as wide as necessary to meet the relief that the plaintiffs in the particular party seek, the majority, as I understand it, I'm still reading right, stop short of saying that the district court in this case was wrong in issuing nationwide relief.

In other words, these cases will wait for 30 days, while in principle, the administration is supposed to issue actual administrative guidance for how this is supposed to be implemented, right? The ball is in their court next. And it goes right back to the lower courts where it was, and the lower courts may well say, yes, the only way to order actual relief in this case is to reissue a nationwide injunction. That's a possibility too.

BLITZER: I know. Everybody standby. We're going to continue our breaking news coverage on this major United States Supreme Court decision. We're also going to update you on all the other major news that's unfolding right now, right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:45:00]

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN Breaking News.

BLITZER: A big day at the United States Supreme Court right now, and then more decisions are beginning to come out. This is the final day of the current Supreme Court session. Paula Reid is over at the Supreme Court for us. A decision involving Obamacare, Paula?

REID: And that's right, Wolf. Today, we're expecting six opinions. There's slowly being rolled out. The first, the biggest, of course, this one we've been talking about, about nationwide injunctions. We also got an opinion about subsidizing internet and phone access. Another one we've gotten is about a panel that decides what preventative services are covered under the Affordable Healthcare Act. This is just the latest challenge to the Affordable Healthcare Act.

And here, the High Court actually upheld this task force saying what insurers have to cover at no cost. And this is notable because the Supreme Court ruled that members of this panel are, quote, "inferior officers." So, it means that they don't have to be appointed by the president. So, this confirms that the current HHS secretary, Robert F. Kennedy, and his predecessor in the Biden administration, that they have the authority to name the experts on this panel.

This isn't one of the biggest cases we've been watching, but this is one of the three that we've gotten so far. We are still waiting for two other huge cases. One about whether minors -- trying to keep minors from accessing porn in Texas can necessitate, can require adults to provide their identifying information, that has gone up as a First Amendment challenge to the high court. We're also watching what the justices have to say.

I see one of our runners over here. What do you have? Which case is this?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: LGBT books.

REID: Oh, we actually have this. This is the other case we're watching for. This has to do with whether parents can opt-out of curriculum that deals with LGBTQ issues. We've seen this conservative super majority continue to expand our religious protection.

[10:50:00] So, we've been watching this. I am told my producer, Casey, just handed me a note. This is a six-three win for parents. So, here in one of the biggest cases of the term, the justice's ruling that parents can opt-out of instruction or curriculum that deals with LGBTQ issues on religious grounds.

And this is significant because this could open the door for other religious exemptions to other aspects of school learning. So, we're still waiting for that Texas case, but this one of the other really big cases that we have been watching fresh off the press, thanks to our runner who brought this over from the high court.

BROWN: Yes. They work very hard out there. And our Elie Honig has been reading through that opinion. Bring us up to speed, Elie.

HONIG: So, this is a dispute that came out of Maryland, just north of district of -- Montgomery County, Maryland where the public elementary school adopted curriculum that involves stories that have LGBTQ characters or themes to them. A group of parents from different religions objected on free exercise of religion basis. They did not say, we want to block the schools from teaching these materials. What they did say is, we want to have the opportunity to pull our students out of class for those lessons.

And now, the Supreme Court has agreed with the parents. They have said that yes, the parents do have the right under the First Amendment, freedom of religion -- free exercise of religion clause, to pull their students out of those specific classes.

BLITZER: These are elementary school kids.

HONIG: Elementary school kids in public schools in Maryland. Yet again, a six to three opinion. Yet again, it's the six conservatives on the parent side, Justice Alito wrote this opinion. And yet again, this is a tough day. I mean, Justice Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson are dissenting on all the big ones. As we discussed before a very sharp dissent in the birthright case. And so far, it looks like a sharp dissent in this case.

But look, this is a win and an expansion of First Amendment, free exercise of religion principles. It's consistent with where this Supreme Court has gone. And it's a setback for the school district, but it's really more of a win for the parents who sued here.

BROWN: Yes.

BLITZER: And, Deborah, I just want to get your sense on this because in this particular case in Montgomery County, Maryland, which is right outside of what we are right now, Washington, D.C., these public schools, the elementary kids, if a teacher wanted to read something -- have them read something about LGBTQ plus individuals, their parents, in this particular case, whether Muslims, Christians, or Jews, if they were very religious and were opposed to LGBTQ, they could say that their kids did not have to listen to the teachers?

PEARLSTEIN: So, what this decision says is that parents have a right under the Constitution if they have a religious objection to these particular texts, right, not to pull them out of the class entirely, but the students don't have to read these books or the like. It'll be up to, I suppose, the school districts in the first instance to figure out how to implement this.

This is not a surprise, this decision out of a conservative court that has been moving to expand free exercise rights substantially in recent years. I think the real question is how broadly is it written? How broadly does this precedent now sweep going forward? It's not so much just about the opt-out rights from this particular book or that particular book, but does this include, for example, instruction on evolution, in scientific classrooms, in high schools and public schools? And that we'll have to read the opinion to find out to some extent. But that's the real sort of underlying stakes here.

BLITZER: So, this is a win for those very religious Christians, Muslims, and Jews who didn't want their children to be exposed --

PEARLSTEIN: It is.

BLITZER: -- to anything involving LGBTQ in the classroom.

PEARLSTEIN: It is. Absolutely.

BROWN: All right. I want to go to Judge Shira Scheindlin. Because you were a federal judge and I'm curious what your take is on this Montgomery County case. And I know you're just reading through the opinion, but it's allowing parents to opt-out, let their kids opt-out of any sort of book reading involving LGBTQ plus themes. I'd love your thoughts on that. And also, just any other thoughts you have on the other big case limiting the nationwide injunction ability for federal judges.

SHIRA SCHEINDLIN, FORMER U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE: Let me go back to the nationwide injunction first. The one thing we didn't say earlier, and we covered a lot, is we may see a flood of litigation in 50 state, because the activist lawyers who have brought these cases were prepared for this. This was an anticipated decision listening to that oral argument. So, I wouldn't be totally shocked to see 49 more lawsuits filed in the next 30 days within the timeframe where there's a stay. And so, we may see this happen throughout the country court after court.

As far as the Maryland case, this expansion of the interpretation of the free exercise clause has been happening now for almost a decade. It is not a surprise. The conservative majority has broadened and broadened this interpretation of the First Amendment way beyond where it was prior to the last 10 years.

[10:55:00]

So, again, this is not a surprise decision. It was expected. And it does give this right for people to be able to opt-out, whether it will end up, as Professor Pearlstein said, banning other ideological issues from the classroom, that's something we don't know yet, and I don't think -- I'm hoping that we don't go that far, but it is an expansion. BROWN: All right. I want to go to our Jeff Zeleny at the White House who has some new reaction for President Trump. Jeff.

JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Well, Pamela, we do know that President Trump has been following the Supreme Court rulings from the residents of the White House this morning. I'm told his advisers have been briefing him as he's been following along here with the rulings. And we are just hearing from him for the first time directly in a message on his social media platform. He says this, giant win, in all capital letters. He said, giant win in the United States Supreme Court. Even the birthright citizenship hoax, his words, has been indirectly hit hard. It had to do with the babies of slaves same year, not the scamming of our immigration process. Congratulations to Attorney General Pam Bondi and others. He says there'll be a news conference at the White House at 11:30.

Let's break that down a bit. Calling it a giant win on birthright citizenship. We have been reporting all morning long, there is still not a final ruling on the actual merits of this. The White House advisers we've been talking to here this morning are also saying the president is heartened by this idea that a single judge cannot upend what his administration, what any president would like to do. So, I expect more reaction from the White House than the president exactly on the just the breadth of the presidential authority and power.

I was just talking to one of White House adviser who pointed out a bit of language in Justice Coney Barrett's ruling there and was talking specifically about how a single judge cannot upend what a president is going to do it. And, you know, there has been some concern and consternation from the White House for many conservatives about Justice Coney Barrett. The president has not joined his voice on that, at least publicly, very much. He's privately expressed some criticism and skepticism of her, but this is just one more example that judges call it like they see it, Supreme Court justices do.

So, today, at least, he seems to be very happy with this ruling from Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the last justice he appointed to the Supreme Court. And again, we're hearing that there will be -- he says a news conference at 11:30. We shall see if that actually is a full- blown news conference. Much more like the president getting together with the attorney general. But certainly, summing up his view, a giant win, at least on this first case, he says. Wolf and Pamela.

BLITZER: All right. Jeff Zeleny, we'll stand by to see if it's a news conference, if he takes questions or just makes a statement.

You know, David Chalian is still with us, our political director. I want to get the political fallout. It's not surprising that Trump is reacting on social media the way he is. Let me read to you and to our viewers precisely what the president of the United States is now saying. Giant win, all in caps, giant win in the United States Supreme Court. Even the birthright citizenship hoax has been indirectly hit hard. It had to do with the babies of slaves, same year, not the scamming of our immigration process. Congratulations to Attorney General Pam Bondi, Solicitor General John Sauer, and the entire Department of Justice. News conference at the White House 11:30 a.m. Eastern.

CHALIAN: First of all, he's made this argument before about birthright citizenship and how he says it in the historical context, he puts it in and thinks what it applied to. You also see here, the president firmly believes, he said this repeatedly, his immigration stances are the lifeblood of his political success over the last 10 years.

And so, anything where he gets back to his immigration arguments he feels he's on firm ground politically there. And that's why I think you see him celebrating the way you do there.

I will say though. This is way before Donald Trump, too, this issue of birthright citizenship on the right. I remember nearly 20 years ago traveling around Iowa with Mike Huckabee, now Trump's ambassador to Israel. In his presidential campaign, this was a key part of what he was selling to Iowa conservatives, to end birthright citizenship.

And so, this has been an issue that the conservatives have been hunting for and fighting about and arguing for, and trying to acquire. Again, the court did not rule on that today. We have to be clear, Trump is -- the president wants to make it as if he won the birthright citizenship argument. He did not. I mean, he won the Supreme Court argument. And we have heard all the caveats that that will entail and we'll see what the next 30 days look like in terms of that issue coming immediately to the fore again with litigation.

But he's going to use the victory in the Supreme Court today.

[11:00:00]