Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

Inflation Surging; Supreme Court Rules on Immigration Cases. Aired 10:30a-11a ET

Aired June 25, 2026 - 10:30   ET

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

[10:30:00]

WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: Our chief legal correspondent -- legal affairs correspondent, Paula Reid, thank you very much for emerging from inside the Supreme Court with that analysis. Always good to get your sense of what's going on.

Right now, I want to bring in Republican strategist former Trump campaign adviser David Urban. He's also a CNN senior political commentator.

What's your reaction to these? It seems like...

DAVID URBAN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes.

BLITZER: ... the 6-3 balance in the U.S. Supreme Court, conservatives and liberals, clearly favors Trump.

URBAN: It clearly favors the president, and, as Paula said, two big wins for the administration here.

Wolf, if you just kind of press rewind to remember back to the campaign, which is 100 years ago now, two of the reasons the president, two of the main reasons president got elected were immigration, fix the border, fix immigration, and the economy.

The economy's been a little bit of a rocky story, right, with the war and prices affordability. Immigration was generally going in the right direction. Then you had everything in Minnesota, kind of got off track. They put in Markwayne Mullin.

And so these two -- these two rulings, I believe, are going to be a real buoy for this administration, in that they feel that TPS, the Temporary Protective Status, was being abused. It wasn't temporary. It was giving people -- in the Trump administration's feeling, they were here too long. People were abusing the system.

And as far as asylum goes, the same kind of thing. The people were applying for asylum incorrectly and it was being abused as well. So, as Paula points out, two big wins for this administration on this. They will be emboldened to do other things.

Maybe this gets the administration back on the right track on some of the things the president ran on, refocuses the base in terms of, look, we made these promises, we're going to be able to deliver on some of these. And that sells with base voters.

These are big wins for Republican based voters and for the Trump MAGA base. These are both things that they will crow about, I promise you. You will hear more about it. And they're still yet to be written. I think we will see birthright citizenship as kind of the be-all/end- all. We will see where the court comes down on that.

That's really probably not likely to happen, but, if it were, it would be an earthquake, and the administration, I think, would be jubilant, but they have got to be feeling pretty good right now, I think, about these two decisions.

BLITZER: And the birthright citizenship decision, we don't anticipate until the final days of this current Supreme Court, before they go into recess for the summer.

URBAN: Yes.

BLITZER: That could be next week. Who knows? But it'll be coming.

(CROSSTALK)

URBAN: But, again, two big wins. People in the White House are feeling pretty good about this right now.

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: A lot of speculation Trump could lose the birthright citizen...

URBAN: Well, no, he could, but I'm saying, at least today, today, it's a good day for him today right here on these two issues.

BLITZER: How important, Priscilla -- you cover immigration, know everything about it. How important are these decisions today for Trump?

PRISCILLA ALVAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I mean, they're massive.

As David laid out there, they are major victories for the Trump administration as it tries to shape policy to allow for its immigration crackdown, because, if you look at them together, you have asylum, which is going to allow them to avoid processing asylum claims at the U.S.-Mexico border at those legal points.

And, by the same token, they're going to be able to end this form of humanitarian relief for certain nationalities, which then could make them eligible for deportation. Now, it's a very complicated population. Sometimes, they have other benefits that they're similarly seeking.

But all the same, you're looking at two ways where the administration cracks down on the border and cracks down in the interior of the United States, all in one fell swoop. Now, I do want to say, with Temporary Protected Status, this has been a C.R. a target of Trump officials and also Republicans, for one big reason in particular, which is that the temporary part of this has always been extended.

So there have been secretaries of the Department of Homeland Security who will designate a country like Haiti or Syria for Temporary Protected Status. That means that those nationals who are in the United States already will have a form of relief because they can't go back to their home country, given the situation there, natural disasters, upheaval, et cetera.

So, over the years, though, that gets extended over and over again. So TPS is only for about six, 12, or 18 months, and then the secretary will extend it again. And Republicans have always criticized that, because they think it's lost the temporary part of this.

I do think it's fascinating that we're getting this decision on a day where we're also talking about an earthquake in Venezuela, because that is actually exactly the type of conditions that usually a secretary of homeland security is going to look at to decide whether those nationals in the United States should be extended protections.

And, so far, the administration has decided to revoke them for Venezuela. And so I do think it's fascinating to see this decision within the context of a country who at another moment may have been wanting their nationals in the United States to have some protection while they deal with the aftermath of that earthquake.

BLITZER: So, I just want to be precise. So, families that have been here in the United States for a long time under this Temporary Protected Status, whether from Syria or Haiti or other countries...

ALVAREZ: Or other countries.

BLITZER: ... even though their kids have grown up here, they live here, they work here, they pay taxes here, they still can be expelled and sent back to Syria or Haiti or other countries?

[10:35:05]

ALVAREZ: They could be.

Remember, they're also get provided work permits, so that could be revoked. They can no longer legally work in the United States. Again, Wolf, there is some nuance here, because sometimes they're also seeking asylum and may be in that process, which also gives them the ability to work.

But this is a major blow for a lot of people in the United States. In fact, as of March 2025, there were over a million people in TPS. And this administration has made it very clear that they want to revoke this because they think that it has gone on for too long for some of these designations.

BLITZER: Yes, TPS, Temporary Protected Status...

ALVAREZ: Protected Status.

BLITZER: ... which is at issue right now. I want to bring back Cully Stimson right now. He's the acting director

for the Institute for Constitutional Government at The Heritage Foundation here in Washington. He's also the former assistant U.S. attorney for Washington, D.C.

Give us your sense, Cully. What's the what's your reaction?

CULLY STIMSON, SENIOR LEGAL FELLOW, THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION: Well, I think it's important to step back, Wolf, quickly.

We take in over a million lawful people in this country per year. So it's not like we're not a welcoming country, and that hasn't changed. But in the statute that authorizes Temporary Protected Status, or TPS, it says that it's not reviewable by the courts.

And so I'm not surprised to see the court pick up on that language and rule that -- the way they did in this case. As to the asylum case, Alito says that, as I think Elliot said, that when you use the word arrive, that doesn't mean about to arrive.

And so we know that, in a lot of asylum cases, ultimately when they wind their way through the courts, that they're denied asylum. And so I think I think the guests here are correct. This is going to be a game changer on one level, because people who didn't get to the border can be turned back.

But that doesn't mean that we're not going to still have a million- plus people coming to our country lawfully. As to the TPS, I think your guest is right too. Here, we have this horrible earthquake in Venezuela. This is exactly the type of situation that TPS was designed for.

So I wouldn't be surprised, Wolf, if you see some people leaving as a result of this decision and other people coming into this country as a result of this, because we know that there's going to be earthquakes and natural disasters all around the world.

The last thing I will say is, there's another aspect of the law that comes into play here, and that is we cannot send people back to a country where it's more likely than not that they would be persecuted. It's called non-refoulement.

And so if, for example, the situation in their country has changed politically and they would be persecuted, we cannot under international law send them back to those countries. So it's complicated, but I think this is a win, for lack of a better term, for the administration on both cases.

BLITZER: Yes, I think it's a big win for the administration.

All right, Cully, Cully Stimson of The Heritage Foundation. Thank you very much. Elie Honig, Elliot Williams, Paula Reid, Priscilla Alvarez, David Urban, thanks to all of you as well.

And we have this important programming note for our viewers. CNN All Access will host a special on today's Supreme Court action at 1:00 p.m. Eastern later today. CNN's Paula Reid will break down the decisions and try to answer your questions. You can submit them right now by e-mailing us at CNNAllAccess-questions@CNN.com. Once again, that's CNNAllAccess-questions@CNN.com.

And be sure to join Paula along with her expert guests at CNN All Access at 1:00 p.m. Eastern later today.

And we will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:43:20]

BLITZER: Two major U.S. Supreme Court decisions just announced.

I want to bring in our chief Supreme Court analyst, Joan Biskupic.

Joan, you were inside the Supreme Court when we heard these two opinions, very significant opinions. Give us your sense.

JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN CHIEF SUPREME COURT ANALYST: Sure, Wolf.

You know that we have had a very difficult term already with a lot of tensions between the conservative supermajority and the liberal dissenters, just one 6-3 opinion after another. And, today, the tension really hit a climax.

And it came when Justice Samuel Alito read three different opinions from the bench, the first one fairly routine, but the second two having to do with immigration and refugee rights. As I know your panelists have already explained to people, but what happened in the courtroom showed not just the division, but the anger between the two sides.

And Justice Alito, right there from the bench, accused his liberal colleague, Sonia Sotomayor, of blindsiding him in effect when she started to read her dissent from the bench.

Wolf, as many of our viewers know, typically, it's the justice who's reading the majority opinion who's the only one who speaks. If somebody reads a dissent, in this case from the liberals, really protesting what has happened in this refugee case involving rules for along the Mexican border, Justice Sotomayor wanted to have her 2 cents.

So what happened first, Wolf, is Justice Alito announced the court's ruling with a very narrow reading of what it means for an asylum seeker to have arrived in the U.S.

It was looking at federal statute and the definition of arrival and read it in a way that makes it very hard for people who've made their way up through up South America and through Mexico to try to get into the U.S., trying to flee some sort of persecution and claim asylum, makes it very hard for them to get considered unless they are physically stepping on soil, not just at some port of entry or near the port of entry. [10:45:27]

And so he explains, as I said, a very narrow reading of that. And then, before he can start and give the next immigration ruling that also is very restrictive of immigration rights, Justice Sotomayor says she wants to read her dissent from the bench.

And she talks about the consequences for anyone seeking asylum in the U.S. from this ruling. And one of the things she does right from the start, Wolf, is to bring everyone in the courtroom, anyone paying attention back to the Holocaust and an incident in 1939, when over 900 Jewish refugees came -- tried to come to first Cuba and then America on a ship, looking for some sort of refugee asylum status, and were turned away, and taken back.

And most of them perished in the Holocaust. She details all this. And then she talks about the international treaties that then were signed after that to make sure that, if someone's trying to come from the U.S. fleeing legitimate persecution because of their -- based on their religion or some other protected status, that the U.S. can accommodate those people.

And she said this complete -- this ruling today completely flies in the face of it, very, very poignant reading. She was joined, she said, by justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, the two other liberals.

And she gave some very harrowing examples of what happens to people along the Mexican border. They get so close to the U.S. and then can't get in and are subject to all sorts of further violence and extortion.

But then, when she finishes -- and that takes probably about 10 minutes, Wolf -- then Justice Alito, who's going to read another opinion, he stops, and he says: If I had known that this dissent was going to deliver that opinion from the bench, I would have said more. I would have said more about why we ruled the way we did.

It was a very bitter response to what we had just heard. I think, Wolf, that usually they know when somebody's going to be dissenting, but I guess in this case he didn't. But then after he said his words against Justice Sotomayor, he then proceeded to talk about the next 6- 3 ruling that, as you heard today from our -- my colleagues, has really restricted the government's use of Temporary Protected Status for people from Haiti or Syria.

Two big wins for the administration and a further revealing of the tension among these nine justices, Wolf.

BLITZER: And just very quickly, on this Temporary Protected Status decision from the Supreme Court, if Syrian refugees have been in the United States legally now for months, if not years, with their families, or Haitian refugees, can they now be expelled from the United States by the Trump administration simply because of this decision by the Supreme Court?

BISKUPIC: It depends on where they were at in their status, Wolf. It can be revoked if now the -- as you know, the administration has been trying to revoke this status that had been extended for people from Haiti and Syria because of conflicts in their home countries.

And, basically, what Samuel Alito said from the bench was, the administration doesn't want Temporary Protected Status anymore. And if those people were here under Temporary Protected Status, yes, it definitely can be revoked. It depends on exactly what sort of applications they had filed, where they were at in their process.

But I'm sure the administration right now is trying to figure out the parameters of all this, but it is not good news for anyone who has previously qualified for protected status because of what was happening in his or her home country, Wolf.

BLITZER: And, very quickly, if they're children who were born in the United States, can they stay?

BISKUPIC: OK, well, that's a question that's going to get to one of the rulings we're probably going to get next week.

That has to do with birthright citizenship. And you're asking about someone who was born in the U.S. on U.S. soil, irrespective of the parents' immigration status. Right now, as our laws stand, as our Constitution has been interpreted, anyone born here on U.S. soil is automatically a U.S. citizen, irrespective of the status of his or her mother or both parents at all.

[10:50:00]

But that is one that the justices also have under consideration. That case, I think, is going to favor the children just because it's been so historic and so much a part of our Constitution and U.S. identity. These other ones are interpretations of statutes and made them easier for the Supreme Court to roll back, Wolf.

BLITZER: It goes back to the decisions that would follow the U.S. Civil War back in the 1860s.

All right, Joan Biskupic, as usual, thanks very much.

We're going to continue to follow all the breaking news out of the U.S. Supreme Court.

We're also following some other major breaking economic news right now. We will have that right after a short break.

You're in THE SITUATION ROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: More breaking news.

New federal data shows annual inflation hit its highest level in three years last month, rising to 4.1 percent in May, up from 3.8 percent in April, one reason, the still very high gas prices. At the same time, spending and income rose faster than economists anticipated during that same time period.

Let's go live right now to CNN senior business reporter David Goldman.

David, put these new numbers into perspective for us.

DAVID GOLDMAN, CNN BUSINESS SENIOR REPORTER: Yes, we definitely need perspective, because 4.1 percent sounds alarming. The Federal Reserve wants that around 2 percent for a little bit of context there.

That's the highest that we have had in three years. Month over month, it 0.4 percent growth in prices, and that was the same as the previous month, but still a lot higher than anyone would like. But I'm going to do something unusual.

[10:55:03]

I'm going to suggest that everyone who just heard me ignore what I just said, because gas prices, as you mentioned, have fallen precipitously since this report in May. Also, oil has come down as well, and that could be good news for inflation this month, which is about to wrap up.

So this is pretty stale information. The thing that I think that we should focus on more is what we call core data, and that has proven to be considerably higher than people want that to be. That strips out gas prices and food, and it's still at 3.4 percent.

That's higher than economists had anticipated, and it suggests that there are other factors beside the Iran war that are contributing to inflation, including A.I. and housing, those shelter costs that we have been talking about.

Now, spending is also part of this report, and that grew at a faster clip than folks had anticipated, 0.3 percent. That's pretty good. If that keeps up, that is good news for the economy, considering that 70 percent of us the U.S. economy is made up of consumer spending.

So, a very mixed report. It's going to take some time to digest all of this over the course of the next several months as the Iran war hopefully dies down, and we will see what the next factors are in the economy, Wolf.

BLITZER: If these numbers on inflation stay relatively high, what's going to be the impact on the Federal Reserve and interest rates?

GOLDMAN: Well, the Federal Reserve has to take care of prices. In fact, the new Fed chair, Kevin Warsh, said that they will double down on getting prices under control, and that is why the market anticipates that the next time the Fed meets in about five weeks, they could raise rates.

And that could mean higher mortgage rates, higher borrowing costs for you and me.

BLITZER: That's what we all anticipate.

All right, David Goldman, thank you very, very much.

David Goldman helping us appreciate what's going on.

And we're going to go back to the U.S. Supreme Court, the majority of justices siding with President Trump on two major immigration cases. Still, some other major decisions remain. What's ahead for the court?

That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:00:00]