Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

Man Charged in Synagogue Arson; New Questions Emerge About Caribbean Boat Strikes; Supreme Court Hears Case on Transgender Athletes. Aired 11-11:30a ET

Aired January 13, 2026 - 11:00   ET

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

[11:00:00]

WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments in two, two cases that could have major implications. The rulings here could set a precedent for whether states can ban transgender females from participating in girls and women's sports.

PAMELA BROWN, CNN HOST: Before the court, there are two cases. You have Little v. Hecox. Lindsay Hecox filed suit against Idaho's 2020 Fairness in Women's Sports Act. That law bans transgender females from taking part in women's sports teams at public schools at all levels.

Here's part of what we heard of the opening statement.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

ALAN HURST, IDAHO SOLICITOR GENERAL: Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

And may it please the court, Idaho's law classifies on the basis of sex, because sex is what matters in sports. It correlates strongly with countless athletic advantages like size, muscle mass, bone mass, and heart and lung capacity.

Tragically, but not surprisingly, male athletes have even injured female athletes in many sports. If women don't have their own competitions, they won't be able to compete. Gender identity does not matter in sports, and that's why Idaho's law does not classify on the basis of gender identity. It treats all males equally and all females equally, regardless of identity.

And its purpose is exactly what the legislature said, preserving women's equal opportunity. In fact, it's our friends on the other side who want to classify based on gender identity. They're seeking special treatment for males who allegedly lack an unfair advantage, but only if those males also identify as transgender.

Denying special treatment isn't classifying on the basis of transgender status. It's consciously choosing not to. Idaho's sex- based classification would get intermediate scrutiny if Hecox challenged it. But Hecox's requested relief presupposes separate women's sports.

All Hecox challenges is the law's application to a tiny subset of males who identify as transgender and suppress their testosterone. But that's not how intermediate scrutiny works. Idaho's law is a substantial fit for 99 percent of males, and a perfect fit is not required. If it were, that would be the end of all sex-based classifications.

Finally, a word about mootness. When trying to avoid mootness below, Hecox told the court: "I intend to play women's club soccer this semester, next semester, and through the remainder of my time at BSU." A contradictory post-cert affidavit does not make it absolutely clear this controversy is over.

So Hecox's formidable burden isn't met, and this case isn't moot. I welcome the court's questions.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

BLITZER: CNN's legal analyst and former federal prosecutor Elliot Williams is here with us in THE SITUATION ROOM.

Elliot, you just heard part of the opening statement coming in from Alan Hurst, the Idaho solicitor general.

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Right.

BLITZER: What's your reaction?

WILLIAMS: Yes, let's unpack a few of the complicated legal terms he was using that are going to be at the center of this entire case.

He used the language on the basis of sex. That is language from Title IX, which governs the concept of sex discrimination in education. That looms over the case, and that's the law at issue here. Did -- does Title IX prohibit the kinds of actions taken against transgender females that are at the heart of this case? And so keep an eye out for that, number one.

Number two, he used a really complex term used called intermediate scrutiny. It is very important. That's going to be sort of the whole ball game here for whoever wins, the level of scrutiny that the Supreme Court gives to the actions of a lower court or an actor before it.

And so, for instance, when something implicates a core constitutional right, like sexual discrimination, typically, laws will be governed by what's called strict scrutiny. They will look very closely at any law that does that because of the suspicion that the country just has about laws that start wading into sex.

Not so fast, the folks at Idaho have said, that, well, wait a second, this isn't quite sex discrimination. The class is really hard to define what's really at issue here, and that's sort of what they're pushing back on.

BROWN: But then how does that fit into the larger framework of how this court has ruled, like in Bostock v. Clayton County, which we have talked a lot about... WILLIAMS: Right.

BROWN: ... where you had Justice Gorsuch, a conservative, authored this opinion that an employer cannot discriminate a transgender person based on sex.

WILLIAMS: So all eyes ought to be on both Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh today as potential votes who are going to be likely in the majority of this decision whatever comes down.

Now, a few things that will come up here. One, this idea of do we treat Title VII and employment differently from Title IX? And, again, this question that the folks from Idaho were hammering a bunch this morning, what about the ambiguities and what about men who can claim that their testosterone levels are so low?

They're still identifying as men, but their testosterone levels are so low that they might not be at a competitive advantage here in the way that some transgender females might be? This was the argument, again, that Idaho raised this morning.

[11:05:09]

This was the argument again that Idaho raised this morning. They're hinging on the uncertainty and saying that, look, this really would only apply to a very small subset of the population and that we, as the state, were in the right in drawing up legislation as we did.

BLITZER: You know, it's interesting, because 29 states, as you well know, Elliot, have laws or regulations banning transgender students from participating in sports according to their gender identity.

Talk to us a little bit about the impact of the ruling in these two cases that have potential implications. The impact could be enormous.

WILLIAMS: Right. The impact could be enormous, and could is the important word, only because the Supreme Court often tends to decide things on the narrowest basis possible and maybe only apply them to the individuals at issue in their suits here or send it back and send it back to the states to tweak the laws that they have written or issue a seismic, colossal ruling about what the definition of sex is in the United States and have it apply to the whole country.

We simply don't know, and I think a lot of that will come out in terms of when you hear, frankly, some of the questioning of the other side of the two plaintiffs in these cases. How do the justices, particularly Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, target their questions that might give some hints as to their thinking on this?

BLITZER: Because very often in these arguments, the questions that these nine justices ask are an indication of where they may wind up with their decision.

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: We will see what happens. BROWN: Yes, can certainly give you a window.

BLITZER: Elliot, thank you very, very much.

WILLIAMS: Thanks, Wolf.

BROWN: All right, thanks so much.

And let's continue this conversation. Camilla B. Taylor is the interim chief legal officer for Lambda Legal, an LGBTQ advocacy group involved in today's cases.

Thank you so much for being here and speaking with us.

So we just spoke with the Republican attorney general of Montana, who believes it's a matter of fairness for biological women and girls to play sports without transgender female athletes, saying that the number of transgender athletes who want to play in girls and women's sports is just so small that they want special privileges, and that's just not fair.

What is your response to his argument?

CAMILLA TAYLOR, INTERIM CHIEF LEGAL OFFICER, LAMBDA LEGAL: Well, let's be clear about what this law did.

The legislature in West Virginia passed a law that banned transgender girls from participating in school sports, and the state acknowledges that there is only one kid in all of West Virginia to whom this law applies. And that's Becky Pepper-Jackson, a bubbly 15-year-old who is a girl like any other girl.

She's been understood to be a girl from the time that we met her, for sure, which was when she was age 11. She is now 15. She wants to participate on track and cross-country with her friends. She wants to benefit from all of the things that every other kid in school benefits from when they participate in school sports.

So the matter of fairness is why the state of West Virginia would pass a law to address a problem that simply did not exist.

BLITZER: As you know, conservative justices and the Supreme Court hold a 6-3 majority and have shown increasing skepticism towards transgender rights. How optimistic are you that the justices eventually when they reach their final decision will strike down these state bans?

TAYLOR: Well, I am optimistic that we can put forward a great case and we have a wonderful plaintiff.

And Elliot is correct, of course, that what we're asking the court to do is to acknowledge that these laws target a vulnerable minority and discriminate against them. And the purpose of the equal protection guarantee is a countermajoritarian one. It protects vulnerable minorities from legislative discrimination by a majority. And, fundamentally, I'm optimistic in the long term that the American

public and that the courts will understand that this is discrimination like any other form of discrimination that needs to be struck down. And I was a lawyer who participated in the fight for the freedom to marry in the early 2000s.

I remember at that time we did not enjoy public support and it felt like an uphill battle. But we had a lot of brave clients who formed families and who lived proudly and authentically as who they are, and public opinion changed and the courts recognized it and the courts vindicated it in the end.

At the moment, I think we're at a similar posture with respect to transgender people. A lot of people don't understand, they don't realize that they know and love a transgender person, and it will take a lot of brave young people like Becky to turn that needle. And this is an important case in getting there.

BROWN: And when it comes to Becky Pepper-Jackson, one of the plaintiffs here from West Virginia, she was born a biological male and transitioned to a girl in third grade.

And we just talked to the attorney general in Montana who said, what's relevant here is that Becky Pepper-Jackson was born a biological male and it doesn't matter what medical interventions Becky received throughout the time she was transitioning.

And he also points out look, there are 27 states that have past laws banning or restricting transgender athletes from school sports. You talk about public opinion here. Supporters of those restrictions argue it's to protect fairness in school sports.

[11:10:06]

And recent polls, including one from Gallup, showed that 69 percent of Americans believed transgender athletes should only be allowed to play on teams that match their birth gender. So are you fighting the will of the people here?

TAYLOR: No, I think we're combating some ignorance that eventually we will overcome as people begin to learn and understand who transgender people are.

And I want to just recognize for a moment how hurtful it is for the two attorneys general whose voices we have heard on this program so far to repudiate the very existence of transgender people and to suggest that transgender people simply don't exist. That is wrong and it's hurtful.

And there's a lot of medical science in this case. And the scientists agree and the lower courts found that the reason why some male athletes may enjoy some form of competitive advantage is because of the amount of circulating testosterone.

And when you take medical treatment, like Becky has -- she's been on puberty blockers, she's been on hormones -- she has the same amount of estrogen in her body that the ordinary girl would have and she doesn't have circulating testosterone that would give her a competitive advantage.

And, in fact, the record is pretty clear. She is not a very good runner. She was cut from the track team. She participates in discus. She is not a threat to anyone. She simply wants to be part of a team with her friends and enjoy the leadership skills that playing on school sports helped to provide all of us.

BROWN: All right, Camilla B. Taylor, thank you so much for coming on and providing your perspective. We appreciate it.

TAYLOR: Thanks for having me.

BROWN: Still ahead here in THE SITUATION ROOM: President Trump rallying his national security team to discuss potential military options for Iran, as the death toll from anti-government protests there skyrockets,

We're going to discuss with former Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:16:27]

BLITZER: New this morning, disturbing new questions about the Trump administration's first deadly strike on an alleged drug boat. It happened back in September in the Caribbean near Venezuela.

Citing multiple officials, "The Washington Post" now reporting the boat was struck by a secret military aircraft that was painted to look like a civilian plane. "The Post" says this led to a legal debate over whether this violated international law; 11 people were killed, including two in a controversial second strike.

Joining us now, William Cohen. He's the former secretary of defense under President Bill Clinton, and is now the CEO of The Cohen Group here in Washington.

Secretary, thanks so much for joining us.

Does this account from "The Washington Post" of a U.S. military plane being disguised as a civilian plane, does that concern you?

WILLIAM COHEN, FORMER U.S. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: It does concern me.

Generally, there's a rule against using military assets camouflaged as civilian aircraft or civilian weapons systems, and then using them to carry out a military operation. So I think it will be challenged legally, but, nonetheless, it's already been carried out, and it will have to end up in the courts and such.

But I think President Trump has said boldly that we're going to use power without regard to whether it complies with or contradicts international law. BLITZER: I want to turn quickly to a subject, very sensitive, what's

going on now in Iran.

Listen to what the White House press secretary said just yesterday. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Diplomacy is always the first option for the president. He's told all of you last night that what you're hearing publicly from the Iranian regime is quite differently from the messages the administration is receiving privately.

And I think the president has an interest in exploring those messages.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: And just a short time ago, President Trump posted on social media that any meetings with Iran are now on hold as long as the crackdown on protesters in Iran continues. What's your reaction to that?

COHEN: Well, I was very encouraged to learn that President Trump was considering diplomacy as the very first, maybe second or third option, rather than turning to military.

If we are in fact going to turn to military, I would hope that we would make haste, if not slowly, at least prudently, because Iran is not the same as Venezuela. And trying to take out the leadership, which is deep in Iran, will pose a significant challenge to us.

I don't believe we have any carrier battle groups in the region. We do have air assets in the region. But the notion that we're going to bomb Iran into submission, I think, carries great consequence, including killing a lot of innocent civilians and also perhaps rallying the Iranian population now in the streets to support the Iranian regime.

So it carries a lot of potential consequences. Our military has demonstrated in Venezuela it can carry out virtually any mission. They are the best in the world, not because of any one year of training, but for decades of preparation.

So they can carry out a mission. The question is, what are the consequences of using military power at this point? There may be cyberattacks as a prelude, followed by attacks on the Iranian regime, military operations and centers.

But, again, it carries great consequences. And I would recommend this is not a case for unilateral action. We have allies in the region. We have Turkey in the region. We have UAE. We have Saudi Arabia. So we have a lot of allies in the region. I think we need their consultation to help us follow our way through to bring about really a removal eventually of the Iranian regime and a restoration of democratic power.

[11:20:17]

That's a long-term operation. And -- but I think, right now, we have to be take care that we don't do more damage to our own position, as well as damage to the Iranian regime.

BLITZER: President Trump is set to meet with his national security team later today to discuss various options as far as Iran is concerned. What do you expect they will be telling him?

COHEN: I think they will say that Iran is the most vulnerable it's been in the last 25 or more years.

We have put pressure from the top, so-called, with the U.S. launching attacks along with Israel. There is pressure coming from the bottom because we have been constraining the Iranian economic system. So the regime is feeling the pressure, hydraulic pressure, as such, being in this vice from top and bottom, and they're being squeezed now like they have never been before.

So it's an opportunity for us to try to, with our allies, bring about a change in the region, because Iran does pose a threat to the stability of the entire Gulf region in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. So there will never be stability in the region as long as Iran is bent on pursuing nuclear weapons.

So I think we need a coalition to make these kinds of calculations of what happens if we use military power to take out what remains of their nuclear program, if we target the major facilities. Air defenses are pretty much knocked down anyway. But if we start targeting all of the military capability with the Iranian Guard, then the consequence, what do we do then?

Who takes over? And the notion that we could in any way stabilize Iran on the immediate basis, I think it's unrealistic. If we look at trying to run a country, it's not like trying to run Venezuela. Iran has about 93 million people, and they are deeply entrenched as far as the ruling theocratic regime.

So we have to pursue this with caution and with prudence. But I suspect the president's going to be given some military options. Again, you will not restore a democratic system or create one at the end of a gun barrel or by airpower alone. It's going to take people on the ground. And where are those people going to come from?

And this raises a political issue, certainly for the United States, with many in the Republican Party and certainly those in the Democratic Party who don't want to see boots on the ground in Iran. So it's complicated. I think the administration is going to do whatever it can to stop the Iranian leadership from slaughtering innocent protesters.

But taking action requires a lot of cool calculation here to say, OK, what happens the next day, the next day, and the next day? How do we bring some sort of stability to that region if we're simply using military power? So, diplomacy really should be the first option, diplomacy in conjunction with our allies the second best option. BLITZER: All right, former Defense Secretary William Cohen, thanks so

much for joining us.

COHEN: Thank you, Wolf.

BROWN: And coming up here in THE SITUATION ROOM: how Minnesota's attorney general is now responding to brand-new attacks from President Trump as the state sues the administration over its immigration enforcement blitz.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:28:04]

BLITZER: We're learning new details this morning about the teenage suspect who the FBI says has confessed to setting fire to Mississippi's largest synagogue. Authorities say they are not ruling out possible hate crime charges against the 19-year-old.

Let's go live to CNN national correspondent, Rafael Romo.

Rafael, I know you have been going through the criminal complaint. What are we learning?

RAFAEL ROMO, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Wolf and Pam.

Well, the suspect identified as 19-year-old Stephen Spencer Pittman made his first court appearance Monday via video call from his hospital bed because he's being treated for burns to his ankles, hand and face, as the Associated Press reported earlier.

According to a criminal complaint filed by the FBI, the suspect's father called the FBI, saying his son confessed to him to setting the fire. Pittman was arrested at a hospital, where he's being treated for non-life-threatening burn injuries.

According to the complaint, Pittman laughed, laughed as he told his father what he did, later referring to the Jewish temple as synagogue of Satan when he was interviewed by investigators. He faces five to 20 years behind bars if convicted and is expected to appear again in court on January 20.

CNN has reached out to a public defender representing Pittman for comment. And, of course, a surveillance video obtained by CNN shows a person, we're looking at it right now, wearing a hoodie and a mask pouring liquid from a can inside the synagogue.

Some of the liquid appears to drip on the person's clothing as well. I had an opportunity to talk to the congregation's president, and this is what he had to say:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ZACH SHEMPER, PRESIDENT, BETH ISRAEL CONGREGATION: They had broken in through one of the windows from the outside with an axe, apparently, and then proceeded to pour gasoline or some kind of accelerant from a gas can all over our library, as well as in front of the administrative offices.

Anything and everything that was in the library is no longer. It's just ash. But, like anything else, the Jews, if anything, as our history shows, we're a people of surviving. We're survivors. And physical things can always be replaced.

(END VIDEO CLIP)