Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

Judge Blocks Trump's Deployment of National Guard to Portland; Illinois and Chicago Sue Trump Admin. Over National Guard Deployment; Supreme Court Rejects Appeal from Ghislaine Maxwell. Aired 10:30-11a ET

Aired October 06, 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]

PAMELA BROWN, CNN ANCHOR: Happening now, a federal judge is blocking President Trump's deployment of the National Guard to Portland, Oregon, for the second time during an emergency hearing. The Trump administration called up troops from California and Texas, despite a decision from the same judge preventing the deployment of the Oregon National Guard, amid anti-ICE protests there. That move resulted in a strong rebuke from the Trump-appointed judge in this case, questioning whether it was, quote, "indirect contravention" of her earlier decision.

So, let's get some analysis. Joining us now is former federal prosecutor and CNN legal analyst Elliot Williams. Before we get to Portland, we just learned that the State of Illinois and Chicago on Monday sued the administration over its move to deploy National Guard troops to Chicago. So, where does this go and how does this fit into the larger picture?

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL AND FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Well, it's all the same larger picture here about the president's authority to send National Guards or National Guard troops or activate the National Guard in places where there is not a rebellion or not the risk of an insurrection. Now, certainly, if there is emergency situations happening on the ground that local law enforcement is not in a position to be able to manage, it makes sense to bring in the National Guard. Well, you know, the president -- the Trump administration has been quite aggressive in sending the National Guard into cities, perhaps in contravention of the law.

So, I think this lawsuit here, we haven't seen it yet, we just know it's been filed, is really calling to question how much authority the president does have to just send National Guard troops into places where he or others believe there might be, you know, a safety situation on the ground.

BROWN: So, how does this ruling in Oregon by the federal judge there, how could that potentially impact what's going on in Chicago?

WILLIAMS: You know, it's really interesting. Different federal courts around the country don't have precedential effect over each other. So, what somebody says in Oregon really doesn't matter in Chicago. Now, they can look at it and say it's the same general principle undergirding both of these cases, which is that there is not an emergency per the Insurrection Act that requires calling in the National Guard. Therefore, we're having the same situation here.

It's the same general idea, Pam, that we're seeing around the country, which is this idea that even if people feel unsafe, even if there is crime happening in a city, that does not necessarily trigger federal law for activating the National Guard. That's a complicated question, typically involving a governor negotiating with the president or a governor negotiating with the White House rather than simply sending National Guard troops in.

There is an important legal question here about the power of states to manage their own law enforcement. And I think that's what they're hashing out in the courts.

BROWN: What about the argument from these cities and Democrats who are saying the Trump administration is trying to inflame tensions as sort of a pretext and a justification to send in the National Guard? Is that a compelling argument?

WILLIAMS: I mean, it's a hard argument to make in court because how do you make an argument that somebody is trying to inflame passions? I think the far more sound argument is that the law simply may not support this. Even if there is crime -- we're seeing it on the screen right now. When crime happens, can law enforcement, state and local law enforcement handle it? Can -- do they have the ability? Do they have the boots on the ground? Do they have the manpower? And often the question is, yes.

Now, if they cannot, of course the National Guard should be called in or of course federal troops ought to be called in. The law has provisions for that. But the mere fact that the president thinks that a place is a hellhole does not empower him or others to simply send the National Guard in. That's really at the heart of this very important question of federalism. How strong are our states? And what power does the federal government have to simply send -- to activate National Guard troops to help them out?

BROWN: The Trump administration, no surprise, is slamming the ruling on the troops to Portland. This is what White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller wrote on X. He said, a district court judge has no conceivable authority whatsoever to restrict the president and commander-in-chief for dispatching members of the U.S. military to defend federal lives and property.

So, what does the law and the Constitution actually say about this? What do you make of that argument?

WILLIAMS: The federal judge -- the local federal judge appointed by President Trump himself in Portland assessed the situation, heard these submissions from the parties and said that law enforcement in Portland is capable of assessing the security situation on the ground there and neutralizing whatever threats there might be. She could certainly assess them in the future, you know, and if they escalate, absolutely call in the National Guard. But take it from the people who are actually there to make the assessment as to what is appropriate use of federal resources here.

Certainly, we all ought to agree that federal buildings ought to be protected and that insurrection and unrest ought to be quelled. But there is a process for that, and that often involves the use of state and local forces, not federal ones. And it's just important to note that the mere fact that we have a military and the mere fact that we have National Guards around the country does not necessarily mean that they ought to be called in every time there is a threat, and that was at the heart of the judge's opinion here, that, yes, I live in this community in Portland, Oregon. I know when it's unsafe. However, this is not the moment we need to be calling federal troops in.

[10:35:00]

BROWN: And just to be clear, I mean, this country has never been tested in this way.

WILLIAMS: It has not.

BROWN: This is unprecedented. It's a -- you know, right? The states are high.

WILLIAMS: It absolutely has. Now, the question of how much power should the states have versus how much power does the federal government have is one that goes back to the founding of the country. But this idea of repeated instances of federal troops being sent into cities simply to carry out local and state law enforcement functions is something we simply have not seen at this rate, certainly in my lifetime, probably in yours and many others.

BROWN: All right. Elliot Williams, thank you so much.

WILLIAMS: Thanks, Pam.

BROWN: I appreciate it. Happening now, the Supreme Court has just rejected an appeal from Jeffrey Epstein accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell. Her attorneys had argued that she should have been shielded from protection under a plea agreement that Epstein struck with federal authorities. The ruling coming to Supreme Court, the Supreme Court is back in session with a momentous term set to get underway this hour.

I'm joined now by Deborah Pearlstein, a constitutional law professor at Princeton University. Deborah, first of all, what is your reaction to this, to the news about Ghislaine Maxwell and the Supreme Court not taking it up?

DEBORAH PEARLSTEIN, FORMER CLERK FOR JUSTICE STEVENS AND CONSTITUTIONAL LAW PROFESSOR, PRINCETON UNIVERSITY: Thanks. So, I actually think this is maybe the least momentous case that the Supreme Court has in front of it. This is not a surprising ruling. This is the Supreme Court saying we're not going to take this up. This doesn't present any novel questions of constitutional law that we haven't decided before. There's no split among the lower courts that we need to resolve. This is an unsurprising outcome in this case that has admittedly drawn huge amounts of public attention, rightly, but doesn't present anything particularly troubling or interesting as a matter of constitutional law.

BROWN: So, then what are the cases that do present that, in your view, that really impact the Constitution and how we all live as Americans?

PEARLSTEIN: So, there are a lot and more every day. We were just hearing in the report immediately before this these extraordinary call-outs of the National Guard or efforts to send a federalized National Guard from other states and send them to other states, those cases aren't at the Supreme Court yet. They will surely get there sooner or later, and I think almost certainly this term.

But before that, we have just this month a dramatic case involving the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act, which has been on the books since 1965. The Supreme Court significantly narrowed its scope about a decade ago under Chief Justice John Roberts. Another provision of the Voting Rights Act is in front of the court this term.

But beyond that, there is this list of cases that the Supreme Court will finally have to decide on the merits challenging various actions of the president, not only including the mammoth global tariffs that we've seen imposed under -- initially under this statute, IEPA, the International Emergency Economic Policy Act, and then, of course, the power of the president to move officials who work in independent agencies, including the Federal Reserve, but not just the Federal Reserve, the FDIC, the Securities Exchange Commission, essentially every independent federal agency across the government that would work if the court does what it appears to do, and that is overturn a nearly century-old precedent that would dramatically revolutionize the shape of the federal government and the president's control over it.

BROWN: And to lead up to this term, the Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration on the majority of emergency DACA requests to temporarily block lower court rulings. Do you think those rulings give any insight into how the court will decide these pivotal cases?

PEARLSTEIN: Yes. So, it's a great and really important question. And the answer, I think, is sometimes yes and sometimes no. In the emergency DACA decisions, so usually the court gives almost no reasoning at all, and sometimes not even an indication of who's voted which way. So, to the extent we can glean insight into the court's reasoning on these emergency DACA cases, it often comes from the dissenters who are saying, we shouldn't be addressing these questions without oral argument, without full briefing, and without actually stating our reasons why. So, it's hard to say.

Some of them, though, like on the removal cases, the Supreme Court has allowed the president to remove officials who are protected by current federal statute and protected by existing constitutional law from removal. And that happening in most of those cases seems enormously significant and an indication the court seems poised to overturn this 90-year-old precedent called Humphrey's Executor that permits Congress to protect from partisan politics some of these officials leading our most sensitive agencies.

[10:40:00]

There's one instance in which the court didn't do that, and that's the president's attempt to remove one of the Federal Reserve officials, Lisa Cook. That is consistent with the court's indications on the merits that it believes or thinks that the Fed might be different from all of these other agencies for reasons that aren't entirely clear. But mostly what we're doing here is reading tea leaves, and that's why there's been so much criticism of emergency docket decision making.

BROWN: All right. Debra Pearlstein, thank you. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:45:00]

BROWN: Happening now, federal authorities are in Memphis, Tennessee. As part of President Trump's crackdown on crime, an effort supported by the state's top leader. But getting pushback from some residents who say it is unnecessary.

Attorney General Pam Bondi announced yesterday that the Memphis Safe Task Force made 273 arrests in under a week and seized 73 illegal guns. It's not immediately clear how those numbers compare to a similar time span before the administration's operation.

Joining us now is Democratic State Representative Justin J. Pearson of Tennessee. So, you represent Memphis, what are you seeing on the ground there and what are you hearing from the community?

STATE REP. JUSTIN PEARSON (D-TN): Yes, most of our community does not want this. We live in a beautiful and beloved City of Memphis, but we did not ask for military occupation. Just yesterday I was at church and a Black Hawk was swirling around our church. This isn't the type of country that we want to live in. These are not the type of resources that we need and have asked for from the federal government. We need resources to deal with poverty eradication, not military occupation.

BROWN: So, Republican officials, as you all know in your state, including Governor Bill Lee, actually is welcoming the operation, calling it a generational opportunity to change the narrative on crime. What is your message to the residents who are worried about crime and agree with the governor?

PEARSON: A lot of our residents are worried about crime, a lot of my constituents. Again, it isn't that we don't have a problem, it's that the resources that we have asked for to reduce crime are violence intervention program funding. We've asked for laws from this very governor to reduce the gun violence epidemic and to limit people's access to assault weapons, to have extreme risk protection orders and red flag laws.

But the only option that we're being given is militarization. And if you give people that option, that's the only option they're going to have. And so, what we're asking for is actual investment to prevent crime in the first place. And you can't talk about crime without talking about poverty.

BROWN: Have you conveyed your concerns to the governor's office?

PEARSON: Yes, we have a letter myself and Representative Gabby Salinas has sent to the governor. Every time that I'm in the legislature, I put over a billion dollars of funding requests for Memphis and Shelby County and for our district to deal with public transit, to provide healthcare access to people, to make sure we have affordable housing. These are the things that actually reduce crime.

You can't incarcerate or arrest your way out of poverty. And the governor and this administration have done everything that they can to strangulate economic opportunity from people. And if you do that, a ramification of that is going to be more crime. So, you have to deal with the root causes.

And as you may have seen with Stephen Miller, a white nationalist coming to our city, talking about they're unleashed, they're not interested in actually solving the problems that lead to crime. And the reality is when they leave, we're going to be left with the ramifications of their terrorism and the harm that they have left in their wake.

BROWN: And Stephen Miller, for his part, would deny he's a white nationalist. According to the FBI unit, you talk about the crime, Memphis had the highest violent crime rate last year among cities with more than 250,000 people. Do you see any upside to the White House's efforts given the arrests made and illegal firearms seized so far?

PEARSON: The only reason that illegal firearms are being seized in the first place is because this state refuses to pass any of the laws that reduce access to guns. Now, 18-year-olds can carry. You don't need a permit to carry. And this administration has done everything to make it easier for people to have access to firearms, not making it more difficult and more challenging.

I don't think that moving us into an authoritarian regime or supporting the policies of a wannabe dictator is going to help us, is going to improve our conditions or the reality of our existence. We have to deal with poverty. We have to make sure that there's economic opportunities, that there are good jobs, living wages, and life- sustaining opportunities for people. If you do not address that, you will never deal with the ramifications of it. And it's no coincidence that Black-led cities, Democratic-led cities are being targeted by this administration.

BROWN: All right. Tennessee State Representative Justin Pearson, thank you so much.

PEARSON: Thank you. We're going to keep fighting.

BROWN: All right. Coming up, fireballs rain from the sky after a mishap at a drone show, sending people running for cover. The video just ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) [10:50:00]

BROWN: Happening now, hikers on Mount Everest are struggling to get to safety through blizzard conditions. According to Chinese state media, look at this, hundreds of trekkers have been rescued from the Tibetan side of Everest, but hundreds more are still stuck in knee- deep snow. The storm began on Friday night and continued through Saturday, and it trapped visitors in a remote valley near the mountain's eastern face. Officials say the remaining climbers are being escorted down in stages.

And new video in the CNN of terrifying moments during a National Day drone show in China, spectators ran for cover when fireballs appeared to rain from the sky. Look at this. It happened after several drones malfunctioned, and some of the drones appeared to have fireworks attached. Fortunately, no one was hurt.

Well, world-renowned scientist Jane Goodall gets the last word in a new Netflix documentary.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JANE GOODALL, FAMED CONSERVATIONIST: There are people I don't like. And I would like to put them on one of Musk's spaceships and send them all off to the planet he's sure he's going to discover.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Would he be one of them?

GOODALL: Oh, absolutely. He'd be the host. And you can imagine who I'd put on that spaceship.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Who?

[10:55:00]

GOODALL: Along with Musk would be Trump and some of Trump's real supporters. And then I would put Putin in there. And I would put President Xi. I'd certainly put Netanyahu in there and his far-right government. Put them all on that spaceship and send them off.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GOLODRYGA: That interview, which was recorded this year, was released after her death at age 91. "Famous Last Words: Dr. Jane Goodall," is available to stream now on Netflix.

Later, what Bad Bunny is saying to people who have some strong opinions about his upcoming Super Bowl halftime show.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: Happening now, deployment denied. A federal judge is blocking --

[11:00:00]