Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

Kentucky Plane Crash Investigation; Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Trump Tariffs. Aired 11:30a-12p ET

Aired November 05, 2025 - 11:30   ET

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

[11:30:00]

NEAL KATYAL, PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY: Absolutely.

BRETT KAVANAUGH, U.S. SUPREME COURT ASSOCIATE JUSTICE: OK, so we have to figure out then what regulate importation means. And you have heard my questions.

If this statue came out of nowhere in 1977, I think your case would be obviously stronger. We have to figure out -- at least I want to figure out what the Nixon precedent stands for and what Algonquin stands for.

On the Nixon precedent, the question is, I think, was Congress aware of that, meaning that when they used regulate importation, and it's now being used to encompass tariffs, that's not unheralded because Congress was well aware?

President Nixon announced those tariffs in a nationwide prime-time speech, 10 percent across the board in August 1971. It was not some kind of little piece of paper. So it was well-known. The question then is, was Congress -- why didn't they change the language? Why didn't they say regulate, but not tariffs? That's kind of the difficult question from the Nixon precedent that I will give you an opportunity.

KATYAL: Thank you, Justice Kavanaugh.

So, five answers on the Nixon precedent. First, there is no evidence that Congress thought it was ratifying Yoshida. It was a single Court of Appeals case.

(CROSSTALK)

KAVANAUGH: It's not -- someone my question. I never mentioned Yoshida. It's the use by the president of that power under regulate importation.

KATYAL: Oh, if we're just talking about that, President Nixon did not rely on the statute whatsoever. I mean, that's very clear. In fact, we have a Marshall McLuhan moment here, because you have before you Alan Wolff, the person who was there in the room with Nixon, saying Nixon totally disagreed that the statute applied.

So if we're just talking about Nixon, I don't think it can get the government where...

(CROSSTALK)

KAVANAUGH: Go to your other four, your other four.

KATYAL: Yes.

So I think the only way it does any work is if the president -- is through the vehicle of Yoshida. And that's what I take it the government is arguing.

KAVANAUGH: OK.

KATYAL: And with respect to that, this cert denied intermediate Court of Appeals decision I don't think it can come close to overcoming the clear, plain text.

The word regulate is -- words regulate importation -- the word regulate has never been used. It's been -- it's -- the Congress uses the term 1,499 times. We got about that number of hits when we looked at it. And maybe there's some double-counting, but it is never used even once to impose taxes or revenue-raising.

And that was the question that Justice Barrett was asking. And so I don't think that this intermediate Court of Appeals decision will get you there. And then even if you thought that Congress knew about Yoshida and even if you thought they liked it, which there's absolutely zero evidence of, I don't think that helps the government for reasons that Justice Alito was pointing to.

Because Yoshida said three things. A, TWEA doesn't give the unlimited authority that the government is seeking here. B, they were only upholding the limited, specific assertion of authority that President Nixon sought there. And, third, going forward the solution they said in footnote 33 was to use Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act, 15 percent 150 days.

So, we have no problem with the president doing that. It's just that this president has torn up the entire tariff architecture. For example, he's terrifying Switzerland, one of our allies which we have a trade surplus 39 percent. That is just not something that any president has ever had the power to do in our history.

And the idea that Congress by implication did this in 1977 and handed him all this power, I think is really difficult.

(CROSSTALK)

KAVANAUGH: Just to ask the other -- go ahead.

JOHN ROBERTS, CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT: Justice Alito.

SAMUEL ALITO, U.S. SUPREME COURT ASSOCIATE JUSTICE: Let's start with just the bare statutory language.

You have arguments about structure. You have arguments about history. They are strong arguments, but let's just start with the bare statutory language, regulate importation. If we disregard all of the rest, would you dispute that that would include the imposition of a fee?

KATYAL: So, if it's revenue, yes, we do dispute that, absolutely.

ALITO: What if there were a statute that said -- I mean, suppose that there's a particular national park that's very crowded, and Congress passes the statute that says the National Park Service may regulate admission to the park? Would you say, well that does not allow them to impose...

PAMELA BROWN, CNN HOST: All right, as we're monitoring the Supreme Court, I want to listen into Governor Beshear after that UPS plane crash on Louisville.

(JOINED IN PROGRESS)

GOV. ANDY BESHEAR (D-KY): ... Louisville Gas and Electric, Kentucky Emergency Management, Kentucky Emergency Management, Urban Search And Rescue Task Force 1, Kentucky ERC, ERT, the Jefferson County Emergency Management, the Jefferson County corner, the National Weather Service, the FBI, and there are more.

There have been over 200 first responders that were on the scene last night, and there is a significant amount of resources in the search- and-rescue, and ultimately what is probably by now the recovery effort that is occurring.

[11:35:01]

I want to thank everybody who was working overnight when it was dangerous, when there was other flammable or explosive materials, but they were searching to try to find any and all survivors and to locate any bodies to try to give families the closure that they deserve.

As of this time, we can confirm that there have been nine fatalities, but I'm now fairly confident that that number will grow by at least one. We hope it doesn't grow by too many more. I believe by this afternoon we will have a pretty good grasp of both the number of fatalities and, if there are any, the number of missing persons that we're still looking for.

Remember, there's a victim family reunification center at the Louisville Metro Police Training Academy which remains open. That address is 2911 Taylor Boulevard. As of last night, there have been 16 different families there. I think the mayor's providing an update where that number may now have shrank.

At least, information I'm getting is those families may not line up with the hospital patients, which means we have got to continue to search that site, hope and pray for the best, but know there may be more loss of life that we're going to learn about today.

Two businesses were directly impacted, Kentucky Petroleum Recycling and Grade A Auto Parts. Thankfully, a local restaurant that is right there that we had great concern would be impacted and we would lose whoever was in it was missed and now is helping the search-and-rescue. We're grateful for them. Another blessing is this plane could have potentially hit the major Ford factory or the Convention Center, those are all close by, and did not. The radius for the shelter in place has been significantly reduced. Louisville Metro is putting out guidance to residents and businesses immediately around the crash site to not consume water.

EEC, the Energy and Environment Cabinet, is working closely with the city on this. Other areas are safe. Now, if you are in the suburbs, if you're in other parts of Louisville, you are as safe today as you have been any other day. The air is fine. Your water is fine.

But that -- immediately around the crash site, we're just trying to be very careful. In new news today, following yesterday's events, I'm declaring a state of emergency to help us deal with this plane crash. It allows us to move resources more quickly through Emergency Management and the Kentucky National Guard.

It allows state resources to be used also through our agencies to be readily available, including disaster resource management, expenses related to response and more, as well as reimbursement. It's going to help to make sure that groups that are already limited in terms of their funding can get some immediate or short-term help as they wait for reimbursement for the costs that they have expended.

Additionally, I have taken action to establish the Team Kentucky Emergency Relief Fund to help those affected by this terrible event. The URL for this site is going to be on the screen. Similar to previous storm disaster funds, every dollar donated will go directly to those affected.

In fact, what we have done is we have gone and amended the Team Kentucky Storm Relief Fund to now allow families impacted by a disaster like this to also benefit from the generosity of Kentuckians.

Remember, the first thing that we pay for out of these funds are funerals, so that in a time of grief nobody is worried about that. In Kentucky, we grieve together and we support one another. Donations will help pay for funerals and for response, recovery and rebuilding.

All right, while Kentucky is responding to this crisis in Louisville following yesterday's deadly plane crash, we must also remember the challenges that our families are facing due to a lack of SNAP benefits brought on by the Trump administration.

This is a program that was under attack early by the president following the big ugly bill. That's why, in June, I wrote a letter to Kentucky's congressional delegation urging them to consider the harmful impacts of this legislation and how it would hit our people, because SNAP is crucial for Kentucky.

In our commonwealth, over 600,000 Kentuckians rely on SNAP. That's one of eight of our people, many of which are kids. These families need this support to avoid going hungry. But on October 1, the federal shutdown began, and this now today marks the longest shutdown in the history of our country.

[11:40:05]

From the start of the shutdown, the president made it clear that this program would be at risk. In fact, the Trump administration stopped the federal government from paying out SNAP benefits for November and also stopped states from flowing state funds through SNAP to pay out those benefits. And that's despite the USDA's Web site saying that he could fund SNAP benefits even in a shutdown.

Americans should never be a negotiating tool. And I am committed to taking action to do what we can to stand up for our people. So on October 20, I announced that, while we were exploring options for SNAP, we had two updates that would help many who rely on this program.

First, after learning our area development districts had exhausted the nearly $10 million in funding for senior meals, I announced that we were able to move $9.1 million to help fund that program. Took a lot of work to find a solution. Thankfully, we did, and the General Assembly leadership agreed to move forward with that plan that day.

I also announced that for November during the shutdown that we could cover the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, program that the federal government was not going to fund. That was about $12 million that's helping our people, many of which also get SNAP benefits.

Following that update, on October 24, we received a letter from the USDA confirming what had already been threatened. The letter said it was suspending all November 2025 benefit payments for SNAP for approximately 42 million Americans that rely on them and that the suspension would continue until sufficient federal funding was provided.

Let me be clear, the president has both the funding and the authority to fund SNAP during a shutdown. In fact, every other president in every other shutdown has done so. People going hungry in this instance is a choice that this president has made.

So, on October 28, I joined leaders from 24 other states and the District of Columbia in a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration over what I believed was an unlawful decision to terminate SNAP benefits. And Friday of last week, a federal judge agreed with us. They said the president had to either partially or fully fund SNAP for this month and moving forward as long as funds were available.

And separately in a different lawsuit brought by cities, a court said the president needed to fully fund SNAP benefits. But knowing it would still take time for the benefits to roll in and knowing what the delays were going to be and being worried that the president would do what he has announced, only partially fund SNAP, I signed an executive order directing $5 million to Feeding Kentucky food banks.

Those dollars are going to be used by Feeding Kentucky. They're going to be distributed through the network of seven regional food banks that work with all the others. Together, these food banks and their nearly 900 local partner agencies, food pantry, soup kitchens and community programs serve all 120 counties.

Only yesterday did our Cabinet for Health and Family Services receive the guidance from the USDA that partial payments will be made, though that came around the same time President Trump posted on TRUTH Social saying SNAP benefits wouldn't go well. That's a nice tamed-down summary of that post.

But, today, we have received confirmation from the federal government that they will begin processing payments tomorrow. Kentucky is ready, willing and able to work around the clock to -- as quickly as possible once funding is received.

It's important to remember SNAP benefits are typically staggered through the month and therefore payments will be too. But I can assure you our teams will be working day and night to make it happen. But knowing the benefits aren't there yet and recognizing the strain on families and on food banks who are stepping up more than usual, I'm taking another step today.

I have authorized the Kentucky National Guard, the best Guard in the country, to assist in staffing food banks as needed. What this means is that every dollar we're providing to the food banks can go towards purchasing the food and that we can provide the extra staffing that's needed as they see a surge of families coming in.

It'll help ensure Feeding Kentucky and their partner food banks can focus on distributing meals without the hardship of finding additional staff.

As the federal shutdown continues, we're also thinking about all the ways that federal workers face hardships and we're doing what we can to help. One way we're doing this is by urging insurance providers to continue coverage for federal workers so they don't lose that coverage. More than 23,000 Kentucky families are experiencing a loss of income due to the shutdown, something that is no fault of their own.

[11:45:03]

Remember, many have not been paid since mid-October. It's incredibly unfair for them to fear losing coverage on top of concerns about pay and rent or groceries or doctor's appointments. In a bulletin we released yesterday, we encouraged insurers to implement the following protective message -- measures for policy holders who are federal employees.

Number one, postpone or withdraw termination of coverage notices that have occurred during the shutdown. Continue that coverage for those federal workers with unpaid premiums for at least another 30 days or 30 days after the shutdown ends. Give our people the time to receive their paychecks and make their payments.

Number two, I'm also asking for federal employees to have more time to make payments on premiums and other charges. Insurers are allowed to extend payment periods for Kentuckians in this type of situation. That way, our federal employees can still get services during the shutdown and have more time to pay.

I'm also asking for these companies to allow more time for repairs, giving Kentuckians more time to pay for necessary repairs. So if during a routine home inspection, an insurer notes a problem with the roof, the insurer will usually give a time frame that the Kentuckian has to make repairs to that roof.

If the repair isn't made within the time frame, the policies canceled, and that Kentuckian now doesn't have coverage.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: All right, we're going to continue to monitor the Kentucky governor, Andy Beshear. The news conference was supposed to be about this UPS plane crash that killed, sadly, a lot of people, but he's made it a lot more right now on the government shutdown, now a record longing -- long government shutdown here in the United States, some 36 days already.

Jamie Gangel, it's interesting that he decided to talk about what's going on with SNAP benefits, food stamps, all the problems that the American people are suffering from right now as a result of this government shutdown.

JAMIE GANGEL, CNN SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT: So, no question he's using this moment he has everybody's attention to pivot to political. I am guessing that he may also consider running for president one day.

I don't think that's a secret. I think it's also important to remember that federal workers just don't work in the Washington, D.C., area. We saw certainly in the Virginia race there are a lot of federal workers who live in Virginia, but federal workers live all over the country.

And he talked about 23,000, I think it was, Kentucky families are affected by the federal shutdown. We did a quick search; 13 percent of the state use SNAP benefits. In light of yesterday's election results, I think this is again an example of how Democrats are going to approach the race and take on Republicans and Trump.

BLITZER: Yes. So what's happening with this government shutdown, as we all know, Pamela, is so painful for so many Americans out there, whether it's involving their health, their education for their kids, whether it's their food, putting food on the table. It's a real problem. They got to end this government shutdown soon.

BROWN: Yes. And there's -- every week, there's hope that perhaps something will happen, there will be a breakthrough. Maybe now that the election is over, there's hope that some sort of deal will happen, because there are everyday Americans like in my home state of Kentucky who are really suffering.

But it is interesting how you saw Governor Beshear make that pivot, seize this moment in the wake of that horrific UPS plane crash there, where there are at least nine fatalities, expect that number to rise, to talk about the politics.

For perspective on that plane crash and that video we keep seeing, I want to bring in our safety analyst, aviation safety analysts and former FAA safety inspector David Soucie.

David, just looking at this fireball and watching that video, you see the plane starting to take off and then crash. What did you make of that and the governor's remarks?

DAVID SOUCIE, CNN SAFETY ANALYST: Well, it is horrific. And to hear the tragedies of the people that are on that airplane is just horrific to watch.

The transition of and his comments about the help and the assistance, of course, it was interesting how he switched that over to the political realm.

But, nonetheless, looking at this airplane accident, one of the things investigators are going to look at, although it's too early to make any conclusions, is the fact that one of the engines is far, far away from the impact point. So what that does is bring up memories of -- in 1979, a DC-10, a similar designed aircraft, had an engine that came off and also very similarly came off and then caused the crash and the death of 277 people.

So one of the things investigators will definitely be looking at is some kind of structural failure of that engine mount.

BLITZER: What kind of plane was it?

SOUCIE: It was a MD-11, which was the McDonnell Douglas of the DC-10 later. It's longer. It has a glass cockpit. It was made to be for a longer haul and more people.

[11:50:09]

But it really didn't go very far, Wolf. They started not using it. It wasn't as efficient as they projected it would be, so it was replaced with newer technologies pretty quickly. I think the last passenger flight was -- held on this airplane was in 2018, and that was just a few that were left in the system.

BLITZER: Yes, awful, awful. The video that we see of that explosion, it's really painful, and I'm sure a lot of people are wondering, is it still safe to go out there and fly?

BROWN: Yes, but, as he said, the plane that in this video is not in service for commercial flights, right, David?

SOUCIE: Yes, that's correct.

BROWN: Yes.

SOUCIE: And you were just so fortunate, you look at that fireball, that there wasn't more fatalities on the ground.

BROWN: Yes.

SOUCIE: The pilot did a good job of keeping it down and in a safe place. BROWN: The pilot must have known what was about to happen and did

that, but it's just -- as you heard there from the governor, we do expect the number of fatalities to rise.

Right now, it's at nine. There are still families who are reporting they're missing their loved ones. So we will continue to track this.

Thank you so much, David Soucie, for your analysis, and we will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:56:07]

BLITZER: We're following the breaking news, a truly landmark hearing at the U.S. Supreme Court under way right now with huge implications for President Trump's trade agenda.

Supreme Court justices are listening to arguments that will determine whether President Trump's sweeping tariffs stay or go. Let's listen in.

(JOINED IN PROGRESS)

KATYAL: ... wartime or conquered territory statute. This is -- or use of the statute. They are tariffing the entire world in peacetime, and they are doing it, asserting a power that no president in our history has ever had. Even Justice Kavanaugh's example of Nixon, really far more limited, didn't blow past Congress' limits, as was said in Yoshida.

This is a whole different animal. And maybe Congress has that power, as I agree with Justice Gorsuch. I don't think that it does. But, boy, they got to say so really clearly. And here there's nothing like that in the text of IEEPA.

ELENA KAGAN, U.S. SUPREME COURT ASSOCIATE JUSTICE: Thank you.

JOHN ROBERTS, CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT: Justice Gorsuch.

NEIL GORSUCH, U.S. SUPREME COURT ASSOCIATE JUSTICE: Well, I don't know if I agree with what you say I say.

(LAUGHTER)

GORSUCH: But, at any rate, back to the plain language and just stick with me for a moment.

The Constitution says that Congress gets to regulate commerce. And everybody understood that that meant and included the power to tariff, Story (ph), Madison, OK?

So, that's sort of a problem, right, that regulate is a capacious verb. And then you have got the otherwise language as well, which we sort of discussed. And just on the plain language, forget about the backdrop of major, do you need major questions to win? I kind of think you might.

KATYAL: No, I don't think so. I mean, if we did, I think we'd win for reasons expressed, but I don't think so at all.

So, Justice Gorsuch, our position is not that regulate can never mean tax or tariff.

GORSUCH: OK.

KATYAL: Our brief at page 15 gives you an example. A president may regulate cars coming in to the city. And then if it adds by charging tolls or something like that, absolutely, in context, it does.

Here, the context you're referring to, Story and so on, says nothing about this case. That is the constitutional context about Congress' use of power.

GORSUCH: But it's part of how we understand language is used. And it's relevant for that purpose. And then when you have got licenses, which are economically the same thing as, would you agree they're basically economically the same thing as tariffs?

KATYAL: Sometimes, they can be.

(CROSSTALK)

GORSUCH: OK, so you have got something that's economically identical to a tariff authorized by this statute. So, where does that leave you as a matter of plain language?

KATYAL: So, let me take the question in two parts. One is about the word regulate and the other is about licensing.

With respect to the word regulate, when it's used in the constitutional sense, it's very different than the sense in IEEPA that my friend is asserting. When we're asserting IEEPA, we're talking about a statute that is granting the president massive powers.

And so the relevant context that I think you look at in asking the question, what did Congress mean in 1977, the best context, the most natural context is, what does Congress say every time they grant the president such power?

GORSUCH: I understand that. I understand.

KATYAL: And then there's just one other point on this. Constitutions are read totally differently. Story and Madison are talking about the constitutional phrase.

And as Chief Justice Marshall said in McCulloch, a constitutional expounding the prolixity of a legal code is the opposite of the way you read the Constitution.

GORSUCH: I do follow that argument. OK.

And what about otherwise again? I just really want to make sure I understand. You say that there's a good reason why the solicitor general didn't make that argument. I will be curious to see what he has to say about that. But what's your best reasoning why the otherwise language...

(CROSSTALK)

KATYAL: Because it's only a mechanism to implement the nine powers, and that licenses sometimes can be revenue-raising and sometimes not.

GORSUCH: Yes.

KATYAL: And so...

GORSUCH: So, if licenses can be revenue-raising, and you can do this otherwise through revenue-raising things, why wouldn't that capture tariffs?