Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

Supreme Court Limits Power Of Lower Courts To Stop Trump Orders; Supreme Court Backs Religious Objection To LGBTQ Plus Books In School. Aired 11-11:30a 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]

DAVID CHALIAN, CNN POLITICAL DIRECTOR: But he's going to use the victory in the Supreme Court today to again claim victory on his immigration stance, on birthright citizenship, even though that was not actually ruled upon.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: He loves to claim victory, as we all know. All right, it's the top of the hour right now. We're here in the Situation Room, and we've been following the major breaking news from the United States Supreme Court. Justices have ruled to limit the authority of lower courts to block a President's executive order by using a nationwide injunction. It's a major win for President Trump and his administration.

PAMELA BROWN, CNN ANCHOR: The case revolved around whether the President can enforce his ban on birthright citizenship after lower courts blocked it across the nation. This could shift the balance of power between courts and the executive branch.

BLITZER: And we're standing by once again for President Trump to speak on these decisions by the United States Supreme Court. We're going to bring that to you live right at the bottom of the hour, 11:30 p.m. Stand by for that.

CNN chief legal affairs correspondent, Paula Reid, is outside the U.S. Supreme Court. Paula, I know you've been pouring through all these rulings, more than 100 pages. Tell us a little bit more.

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Yes, we expect to get another ruling any moment here. But so far we have four of the six remaining cases of this term. The biggest one, of course, that ruling limiting the power of a single judge anywhere in the U.S. to block an executive action for the entire country.

These so-called nationwide injunctions have plagued every modern president. But because President Trump does so much through executive action, this has become a pet peeve of his and his Republican allies. So here are the facts that the conservative supermajority has limited the ability of these judges to block his policies immediately.

This is a significant win for the Trump administration because it means that they will be able to proceed with many of the policies that they have tried to implement through executive action. Now, this case focused specifically on Trump's effort to limit birthright citizenship, the idea that if you were born here, you are a U.S. citizen. This is a promise that he made on the campaign trail to -- to limit or eliminate this.

The court did not weigh in on whether he has the power to do that, whether that's constitutional. And previously, administration officials have told me they're not even sure that they would win on the constitutional merits. What the court has decided now is that a judge cannot block that effort for the entire country. So that has been the biggest win so far for the Trump administration.

The President's lawyers have previously told me that this is the number one case that they are watching. We've also gotten some other opinions granting parents the right to opt out of curriculum that has to deal with LGBTQ issues. If they have a religious exemption, also an opinion related to a task force that decides what preventative services must be covered under the Affordable Health Care Act.

The two opinions that we're waiting for right now, one, an important question about redistricting in the state of Louisiana and another question about pornography in the state of Texas. It's a First Amendment question asking whether in an effort to prevent minors from accessing pornographic sites, if you can require adults to provide their identifying information.

So right now, way behind me at the Supreme Court, the justices, they are releasing these final opinions and will bring any news to you live.

BROWN: All right, Paula Reid, thank you so much. Still very busy morning out there, the final day for the Supreme Court. I want to go to our Elie Honig to start with the biggest case of the morning with the most wide ranging impacts on everyday Americans.

And of course, that is the birthright citizenship and the limiting of federal judges ability to -- to issue nationwide injunctions per the Supreme Court ruling today. You actually think that it has more of an impact, more ramifications in the immunity case that we were dealing with a year ago.

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: I do. I think this is a fundamental shift in the balance between the powers of the presidency and the powers of the courts. The immunity ruling was seismic. And but theoretically, that should only apply if a president potentially commits crimes in office. We hope that doesn't happen very often. And it's a fairly narrow band of activity.

This ruling that we just got impacts everything about the way the presidency exercises power. This issue of individual district court judges blocking presidential policies nationwide. This is not a Trump specific issue. Yes, it's happened to him far more often than it happened to Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

But they challenged it in the courts, too, especially the Biden administration. They never got it up to the U.S. Supreme Court. And what the Supreme Court has decided today. And I see the President's statement that we just talked about. It's a little bit misleading. So Trump says giant win in the United States Supreme Court.

OK, he's right to the extent that his administration, like others, have furiously objected to this practice of district court issuing nationwide injunctions that has been severely curtailed. So, yes, absolutely very big win for Donald Trump, but really for the presidency. But then the rest of his message suggests that he's won the birthright citizenship issue, which is not at all the case. The court does not rule on whether Trump's effort to narrow birthright citizenship is constitutional or unconstitutional.

[11:05:18]

In fact, we know based on this ruling, the three liberal justices in the dissent have said we think it's unconstitutional. So that birthright citizenship issue and watch for this when the President makes his remarks. If he declares victory on birthright citizenship, that is not what has happened here today. That case will make its way back to the Supreme Court probably sooner than later.

And we know there's already not a surprise, but we know the three liberal justices are already against it. So if two more join them, and I think that could well happen, I think if I had to guess, I think Trump's birthright citizenship position ultimately will be struck down by the court. It's a little bit of speculation there, but I think if you sort of read the law on it, I think he's on the wrong side of this.

So but really, the bottom line here is the presidency is much more powerful than it was two hours ago. The courts are less powerful than they were two hours ago.

BROWN: Yes. And we should note also, just to remind our viewers, perhaps those who are just now joining us, that according to the opinion, there's a 30-day hold, so more people can bring challenges. It -- it does raise the question of what's going to happen to those who are in the U.S. you know, that are not citizens that have a baby.

HONIG: Yes. And the court still does leave open the possibility of nationwide injunctions. For example, the court sort of theorizes a bit, well, states can bring these. Some of these lawsuits were brought by states with Democratic governors and Democratic AGs. So if a state challenges a presidential action and wins and convinces a district court, this needs to be blocked to protect all the citizens of this state.

And maybe even more broadly, if there's issues of federal funding being drawn down, there still is a way to get a nationwide injunction in a district court. But it's much harder now.

BLITZER: Everybody stand by. Jeff Zeleny is monitoring the reaction that we're getting over at the White House. What are you learning, Jeff?

JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, we are learning that the President is now scheduled to join his attorney general and others in the briefing room of the White House, they say scheduled for 11:30 a.m. for the -- the President to hold a news conference to talk about what he viewed as a giant win. But it's clear, even as these other rulings are still coming in, it is unclear if that will -- will be a pushback or not.

But look, the administration, the President is trying to seize on this ruling that certainly speaks to executive authority and his power, trying to extend a win to immigration overall. And again, as we have pointed out all morning long, that is far from certain. But part of this, the whole idea in the opening days of his presidency of signing this executive order for birthright citizenship was to have a conversation with the Supreme Court about this as well.

So this is something that the President will certainly claim a win on, even though we, of course, will have to fact check it along the way for birthright citizenship that will be to come later on. But certainly this is a sign the President is viewing. What is largely his Supreme Court, I mean, for as much as this President has railed against the judiciary, as much as this president has often criticized us sitting judges and jurists, this is one of the significant differences from the first administration.

As we end the Supreme Court term, it is just so clear that this is a comfortable, a comfortable majority Supreme Court, but also a majority Trump Supreme Court. He appointed three justices, as we know, during his first term. So that is something that he wants to also take stock of as well, so a significant moment for the White House in terms of executive authority.

But Wolf, as I've been talking to White House advisers, one lawyer here pointed out another line inside this ruling from Justice Amy Coney Barrett that is resonating inside the West Wing. I'll read it to you very quickly here. It says federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the executive branch. They resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them. So basically, federal courts can't tell the president what to do. And that is music to the President's ears, at least in some limited cases. Wolf?

BLITZER: It certainly is. All right. Jeff Zeleny will stand by for the news conference going to be coming up if it's on schedule in about 20 minutes or so. We'll have live coverage, of course, right here on CNN.

Deborah Pearlstein is still with the constitutional law professor at Princeton. Did we get a sense from what you've been reading about this decision today, birthright citizenship, on how the Supreme Court will eventually determine whether birthright citizenship should, in fact, continue to be the law of the land?

DEBORAH PEARLSTEIN, FORMER LAW CLERK FOR JUSTICE JOHN PAUL STEVENS: Yes. It's a great question and a really important one. As Elie pointed out just a minute ago, at least three justices make very clear in this opinion that they think this is clearly unconstitutional. Every lower court that has ruled on the merits of this question to date has very quickly concluded that this order is unconstitutional.

[11:10:03] And those are lower courts with judges appointed by both Republican presidents and Democratic presidents. The -- the sort of Republican appointed justices during oral arguments were very circumspect about whether or not they thought this was constitutional or not, and -- and gave no indication that they thought it was. I tend to agree with Elie. I think there is every likelihood that when this actually finally does get to the courts on the merits, they'll conclude it's unconstitutional.

And I think that --

BLITZER: Because of the 6-3 conservative majority in the -- in the Supreme Court?

PEARLSTEIN: No, because even conservative justices on the Supreme Court have read the Constitution and the history of this 14th Amendment and that particular sentence that the President is fond of overlooking. But that says everybody born here is a citizen. This is as clear as the Constitution ever gets about questions.

And it's a -- it's been a long forming, but still really uphill argument to -- to suggest that it says anything else. There are plenty of conservatives who agree that actually the 14th Amendment means what it says. And the question is, how quickly can we actually get the question on the merits resolved? A large fraction of the dissents in the birthright citizenship case are -- are devoted to saying the Supreme Court shouldn't let the administration game this just decide the question. And they clearly punted on that today.

BLITZER: It -- it's been the law of the land since, what, 18 -- we're talking about 1868.

PEARLSTEIN: Yes. Since it was the 14th Amendment was passed. And it says, I'll read it one more time. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. The key phrase that some of the opponents of birthright citizenship say and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, that opens the door for preventing children of undocumented immigrants to become automatic citizens of the United States. You've heard those arguments.

PEARLSTEIN: I've heard those arguments. I -- I don't think they're persuasive. I don't think most constitutional law professors think they're persuasive. Among many other things, it would require assuming that no citizen, no non-citizen in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, meaning if a non-citizen commits a crime in the United States, they're not subject to our jurisdiction. So there's nothing we can do.

That is clearly never been the law, nor would anybody suggest it is or should be. So that argument is deeply problematic on multiple levels. But I just want to say one other piece about that sentence in the first the first sentence of the 14th Amendment. That sentence was written specifically to overturn what the Supreme Court held in Dred Scott versus Sanford, right? One of the worst Supreme Court cases of all time that many think is part of the trigger that caused the United States to fall over the edge into civil war.

The stakes and the -- the meaning of that particular sentence in that amendment for what the country became in the century and a half since the Civil War, I think can't be overstated. And that's why it's a shame the Supreme Court doesn't just get to the merits. I hope it does soon.

BLITZER: And it's interesting, because children born of foreign diplomats who are serving here in the United States, they are not automatic U.S. citizens.

PEARLSTEIN: That's right. And I -- I think that's what that language is included in the amendment, right, that kind of that kind of amendment or excuse me, that kind of exception to address, but not an exception to the general. Everybody born here who is simply born in a hospital like anybody else or in a car or wherever they may be born is automatically, in effect, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States unless there's some rare diplomatic exception or the like.

BLITZER: Interesting point.

BROWN: Yes, I was just reading this really scathing solo dissent by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson to this ruling. And she is warning that this will enable our collective demise, saying that -- that let's see, the appointee of former President Joe Biden accused her conservative colleagues of creating an existential threat to the rule of law by allowing Trump to violate the Constitution.

And then she warned that the executive lawlessness will flourish if lower court judges are now required to let a president act unlawfully. Eventually, executive power will become completely unattainable, uncontainable, and our beloved constitutional republic will be no more.

I want to go to Judge Shira Scheindlin, actually Elie Honig now with some news.

HONIG: OK, so first of all, this has been a bad day for office morale within the Supreme Court. I mean, we've seen in the two big cases we saw already, birthright citizenship and then the religious freedom case relating to the schools in Maryland, that same sharp six to three split, six conservatives on one side, three liberals on the other side.

We just got in another opinion. Now, I'll just set the stage. I haven't had a chance to read it. I'm sure Paula is furiously reading it. But this is a relates to a state law passed in Texas that requires any media outlet online or otherwise. That offers pornography to do a --

[11:15:12]

BROWN: Hold on Elie. I got to interrupt you to go to Paula Reid right now.

HONIG: Yes. BROWN: Paula?

REID: He was trying to steal my headline. We have breaking news. Elie and I have been talking about this case for months. This is one of the big ones, as Elie was just teeing up there. This case has to do with adults having to provide identifying information to the to access pornography. Now, this is part of an effort by the state of Texas to prevent minors from getting access to this.

But it was challenged as a First Amendment issue, saying that this violates First Amendment rights of adults who want to access this. They have to provide their identifying information. It was pretty clear during oral arguments that the justices were leaning in favor of siding with Texas and with this requirement.

And here, Texas is being they are winning here. These requirements to provide your identifying information to prove your age will remain in place. This is an opinion from Justice Clarence Thomas. We just got this in. And this is the latest case, but this is really the last big case that we've been waiting for this term.

BROWN: OK. Elie?

HONIG: Well, it's a six to three again, with the six conservatives ruling in favor of the state of Texas and the three liberals would have struck down the law. So the basic question here is, does this requirement that if somebody wants to go on the Internet and view porn, they have to provide actual identification showing that they're over 18 years old? You could scan your driver's license or -- or that type of thing instead of just clicking a box.

And what the conservatives have said here is essentially that is a reasonable law for the state to pass. We're not going to subject it to what we call strict scrutiny, the highest level of scrutiny, they say, and I haven't had a chance to fully read it, but we watch the arguments that I've read the syllabus that comes with it. Essentially, there's a valid state interest in protecting children from seeing these materials.

And during the oral argument, the justices said this is a different world. This stuff is way more available to children now than it was however many years ago, and that the law is reasonably tied to that goal. And therefore they say we uphold this. I imagine I haven't looked at the dissent yet, but the other side argued during the appeals argument that this -- this is a burden on free speech, that people have the right to look at this stuff without being worried that they'll be identified or known or their names kept on some kind of list by the provider.

So for the third major decision today, all three of them, you know, have gone six-three. And, you know, as -- as Joan Biskupic has really taken us inside the court with her reporting, I know she'll be on later, but it has long been a concern of the chief justice. He doesn't want the Roberts court to be seen as the -- the splintered court that went hopelessly into their ideological corners. And to this point, the court had sort of had some surprising rulings where you saw people crossing over. But today is -- is a six-three day.

BLITZER: Yes.

BROWN: Not good for office morale issues.

HONIG: Exactly.

[11:17:59]

BLITZER: All right. We're going to continue our breaking news coverage of all of these developments right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: We are awaiting a press conference from President Trump on some of these rulings coming out of the Supreme Court. And just minutes ago, the Supreme Court ruled that schools will be required to provide elementary school parents the choice of opting out from the reading of LGTB -- LGBTQ Plus. Parents who cite religious objections will be able to pull their children from those lessons.

BLITZER: The case comes from the Montgomery County Public School District in Maryland. That district is right outside of Washington, D.C. Mark Eckstein is a parent there and chairs the LGBTQ subcommittee for the PTA. And Eric Baxter is part of a law firm that represents a coalition of religious parents, including Muslims, Christians, and Jews, who challenged the opt-out ban back in 2023. Eric, let's begin with you. What's your reaction to this morning's Supreme Court ruling?

ERIC BAXTER, VICE PRESIDENT AND SENIOR COUNSEL, BECKET FUND FOR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY: Thank you. The First Amendment did its work today, indicating the right of parents to have the final say on instruction that would violate their religious beliefs.

This is really a great victory for parents of all political and religious stripes, vindicating that they have a final say in what their kids are taught in public schools. We're really grateful for the court's opinion this morning.

BLITZER: Mark, what's your reaction?

MARK ECKSTEIN, MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS PARENT: Good morning. Well, I'm a parent in this school district, and I'm disappointed. I'm disappointed in this ruling. This ruling does not represent the values or views of myself and really most people in our community. We simply want our kids to go to schools that are inclusive and welcoming. But this ruling seems to do the exact opposite, unfortunately.

BLITZER: Will you try, Mark, to fight a new opt-out policy, as it's called, on the local level, say with petitions or organized events?

ECKSTEIN: You know, I think -- I think that's a good question, and I think the reality of it is that, you know, the majority -- a lot of the parents, I mean, I think what we're seeing on the opposition is kind of a loud minority here. And the -- the -- the thing that I do know is that the parents in the community and students and educators have worked very hard over the last few years to -- to make our curriculum more inclusive and to represent this diverse community. As -- as you all know, since we're so close to Washington, Montgomery County is one of the most diverse in our country.

[11:25:19]

And, Wolf, I'll point out that, you know, it's not the 1950s anymore. You know, the content in our schools looked different than we were in -- in high school. And I really applaud, you know, all of the effort to continue to make that representative of our -- of our country. I will point out that, you know, this was all about underrepresented groups, like Muslim Americans and Asian Americans in different races, to be part of our curriculum. But it is heartbreaking to see that the LGBTQ community was singled out.

BROWN: Eric, I want to bring you back in to get your thoughts on how you would like to see this ruling-shaped school policy across the country. And what does it mean for books that tackle other issues that perhaps religious parents take issue with, such as evolution?

BAXTER: Well, the great thing about this opinion is it really allows for and protects a pluralistic society. When people disagree, neither side gets to push its view or enforce its view on the other's children. Those parents who want these books for their children, they still get that in the schools.

And parents who don't, their kids step out of the classroom for an hour while the instruction is presented. That's how these issues have always been resolved. There are laws in every state, including Maryland, where this case arose, that already allow for that.

This is an example of the school board pushing an extreme ideology. This wasn't about kindness and respect. And the court recognizes it was telling kids that doctors guessed at their sex when they were born, that their pronouns changed not just by their gender but by their weather or how they feel.

And so these books were highly confusing. And opt-out options have always been available both in Montgomery County and around the nation. And you don't see parents asking for extreme opt-out. This is a sensible solution to an extreme ideology that was being pushed by this particular school district.

BROWN: Eric, I'd like to get your thoughts on that and what you think about this. I mean, this applies only to elementary school children, right?

BAXTER: The law actually can protect children of all ages.

BROWN: Sorry. Sorry. Go ahead, Eric, and then I'll go to Mark.

BAXTER: Yes, the court recognized this is a decision the Supreme Court ruled in 1972 in a case called Wisconsin versus Yoder that high schoolers could be opted out of instruction that violated their religious beliefs. That was a case that involved the Amish. They didn't mind their kids being in elementary school, but they did mind having their kids in public school instruction.

And the court said these are fact-sensitive situations. It will depend on each case how, if the school is being neutral, how -- how they present material or they're trying to push an ideology, which is clearly what they were doing.

BROWN: All right. Mark?

ECKSTEIN: Well, I think there's some hypocrisy here as well because, you know, as your panel of constitutional lawyers and legal analysts have been pointing out, often the six to three rulings, the -- the opposing side on this view, has leaned into local jurisdictions and states' rights. And, you know, what's -- what's really ironic about this situation is our county and our states have mandated this inclusive curriculum. So we have decided this is what we want. And it's a shame that this ruling will -- will hamper that -- hamper that objective.

BLITZER: Mark, let me follow up. How do you think you and other like- minded parents in Montgomery County will be explaining this new opt- out policy to your kids?

ECKSTEIN: That's a good question. You know, I have kids in the school system that have went through various different years as this inclusive curriculum was being rolled out. And, you know, the general consensus, especially among students and -- and educators, is this has been a wonderful development in terms of recognizing and representative -- representing the -- the true nature of our -- of our county.

And I think it's important that parents like myself have kind of rallied around, you know, this -- this foundational argument that our kids are better served when they know about the world around them and the kids and -- and such that are part of this community. And it -- it's really heartbreaking for students and parents and teachers to see a student like plucked out of the classroom when there is going to be a novel read with maybe two moms or something.

So, you know, I'll just -- I'll just add this -- this all looks really good on paper and this, but the reality is it's just completely unimplementable and it's unworkable. And I think the opposition knows that. So the true is -- it is to really, you know, kind of erase certain identities in this case, you know, LGBTQ.

BLITZER: All right, Mark Epstein -- Eckstein, I should say, and Eric Baxter to both of you, thank you very much for joining us.

[11:30:03]

I want to go to the White House right now. Kristen Holmes is standing by the news conference with the President. He's about to make a statement.