Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

Supreme Court: Trump Cannot Fire Fed Government But Expands His Power Over Other Independent Agencies; Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ), Is Interviewed About Rubio To Brief House Lawmakers Today On Iran Agreement; Supreme Court Upholds Post-Election Grace Periods For Mail Ballots. Aired 11-11:30a ET

Aired June 29, 2026 - 11:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:01:19]

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Welcome to our viewers here in the United States and around the world. I'm Wolf Blitzer with Pamela Brown and you're in The Situation Room.

And we begin this hour with the breaking news. Just minutes ago, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down two, yes, two key decisions on presidential power and the firing of people from government agencies. Justice has ruled that President Trump does not have the constitutional Authority to fire Lisa Cook, a governor from the Federal Reserve Board.

PAMELA BROWN, CNN ANCHOR: But the court backed the President's power to terminate Rebecca Slaughter a Democratic appointee to the Federal Trade Commission. This ruling grants more presidential power over federal agencies that are considered independent. It overturns 90 years of precedent. CNN chief legal affairs correspondent Paula Reid is right outside the Supreme Court. So Paula walk us through the significance of these decisions today.

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Pamela, these are such incredibly significant decisions in many ways. These will be some of the defining opinions of the Roberts Court because they get to this question that has been hanging over the second Trump term, which is are there any limits to his ability to fire federal officials and here they give us some insight while President Trump and his lawyers believe in something called a unitary executive theory and that the executives should be able to fire anyone they want any way they want. Here, the justices put a few, a few limits on that.

In the one case they ruled and it's a really interesting group that was in this majority opinion. It's Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Kavanaugh and the three liberals all ruled that he cannot fire an official in the Federal Reserve without going through a process getting that individual an opportunity to respond that there are some limits on his power when it comes to firing officials at that agency. Now, that is one that is of course always been recognized as being independent of the White House, but in a separate case when it comes to an employee at the Federal Trade Commission, that he does have the power to fire that individual because that is within the executive branch. And again, this is a significant decision because it's sort of drawing out the contours of the extent of his power to try to reshape the federal government through these mass firings.

Now President Trump wasn't clear how he's going to react to these decisions and it's been a pretty mixed day for him overall at the court, but he described this as "a big win." Now we have learned that tomorrow will be the last day of opinions and there is at least one other really big case related to his executive power his efforts to limit birthright citizenship sources even within his legal team don't expect he will have another "big win there," but we'll see what they do tomorrow.

BLITZER: We'll certainly be covering that tomorrow major decision. That will be the final decision of this current session of the U.S. Supreme Court. Paula standby, we'll get back to you. I want to bring in our chief Supreme Court analyst Joan Biskupic right now. Joan, like Pamela -- like Paula you were inside the court when these decisions came down. Give us a little sense of how that felt.

JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN SENIOR SUPREME COURT ANALYST: Sure. Wolf, it's good to see you. The most important thing the justices did today was in the case involving Rebecca Slaughter of the Federal Trade Commission. Chief Justice John Roberts and the conservative majority use that decision to roll back nearly a century of legal policy about the President's power to remove the heads of regulatory agencies. Now in some ways this is going to sound kind of dry and arcane but regulatory agencies are so important for how Americans live their lives.

They cover rules for you know, medical health, nuclear power. In this case is the Federal Trade Commission that was at issue and we're talking about, you know, safeguarding consumer practices antitrust issues. So that's -- that gives you a sense of all that's at stake. But this court for many, many years has really not appreciated is a congressional power to set these up and set up independent heads that the President can only remove for what's called for cause that would be if somebody was actually found guilty of some sort of malfeasance or ineffectiveness in office.

[11:05:28]

And that's what happened to Rebecca Slaughter. She was an appointee who had many more years left on her term, but President Trump when she came into office said he wanted to remove her he wanted the power to do that. And the Supreme Court has used that case to say, yes, President Trump can remove Rebecca Slaughter, even though her terms not up a Democratic appointee, and he can do that at the multitude of other independent agencies that at one point as I said, Congress had set up to be independent to not be under the pressure of the President. That was a 6-3 decision.

And after the chief who has had a special project here in trying to give the president much more robust power to not just hire people but to fire. Justice Sotomayor then read her dissent from the bench and she said this can go in one of two directions. This can give, you know, it can give the President more power and maybe he would be more accountable or it could lead to chaos. And she looked up at the spectators and she said something to the effect, I can guess it which way it will go. Maybe you can too.

So Wolf, dramatic case today. It doesn't it doesn't apply to the Federal Reserve as we saw with the Lisa Cook one, but it reserves -- it applies to a multitude of other agencies who perform a lot of safeguard perfect -- safeguard functions across the country. Wolf?

BLITZER: All right, Joan Biskupic, thank you very, very much.

BROWN: I want to go over to Paula Reid now because there was another big ruling today where justices rejected a Republican challenge to a Mississippi law that allows the counting of some mail-in ballots days after Election Day. So it's certainly a blow to President Trump and his efforts, Paula, to reduce mail-in voting ahead of the midterm elections.

REID: That's exactly right. And Pamela, I really do think this is one of the biggest cases of the term and it's notable that it came out against the Trump administration because they've been arguing that if the law says that the election has to be held the Tuesday after the first Monday in November ballots cannot be counted if they come in after that and this was sort of a test case if they were able to succeed here and limit those ballots are being counted. It was expected that they could potentially go on to challenge other forms of voting not exactly on Election Day in person voting those kinds of things.

So it's notable here that they lost and the state of Mississippi, which does allow the counting of mail-in ballots if they arrive after Election Day as long as they are postmarked by Election Day that that state one because this is something that is also done in roughly a dozen other states. So this is a really significant case because we were watching this closely to see if the Trump administration prevailed in this case, where else could they try to go to limit those voting opportunities. So this is a significant loss for the Trump Justice Department.

BROWN: All right, Paula Reid, Joan Biskupic. Thank you so much. Wolf?

BLITZER: All right, our panelists here in the Situation Room to discuss these decisions. CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig and Cully Stimson, acting director for the Institute for Constitutional Government at the Heritage Foundation here in Washington. Elie, as Paula reported, we learned that tomorrow will be the final day of decisions for this session of the U.S. Supreme Court. We have birthright -- the birthright citizenship case, transgender sports bands left, any indication how the justices will rule?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, so a lot of times when the Supreme Court has these days, we're guessing we don't know what's going to come down. Tomorrow will be the last day of the term and we know it will be the birthright citizenship case, a pair of cases having to do with transgender athletes and then a case having to do with campaign finance. Based on the oral argument that happened back in April on the birthright case, I think it is very likely we don't know but very likely that the Trump administration will lose that the Trump administration's effort to redefine birthright citizenship to substantially narrow the scope of birthright, I think that will be rejected if I had to guess and I expect again based on oral argument that the Supreme Court will uphold our long-standing conception of birthright citizenship that it means essentially with only the narrowest of exemptions if a person is born here, they are citizens no matter what the parents status.

So that's the big one we're watching for. Then there's a pair of cases about state laws that say transgender athletes cannot compete in women's and girls' sports. A little harder to tell how that one will come out the justices seemed a bit more ambivalent and a bit more split if I had to guess I think the justices will uphold those laws and say if states choose to prevent transgender athletes from participating in women's and girls' sports, they can do so. But we'll know by 10:00 a.m. and change tomorrow.

[11:10:07]

BLITZER: The 14th Amendment to the Constitution as you know, Cully, says 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 words here according to those who oppose birthright citizenship are subject to the jurisdiction thereof, right?

CULLY STIMSON, FORMER ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY FOR D.C.: Right. And the argument is that these 13, 14th and 15th Amendments of the Constitution were passed after the Civil War, they were -- that language itself in the 14th Amendment was to guarantee the children of slaves, newly emancipated slaves citizenship in these United States. And so the argument continues and says but for a long time in our country's history you did not grant birthright citizenship to people who were foreigners who had kids here in the United States. It's only been in the last 50, 90, 100 years or so.

And the problem is that and I think Elie is right, the argument that was made at the Supreme Court, it presents a lot of problems. The government tried to say, well, look, we're only going to apply this prospectively if the court agrees with us, but I just have a hard time believing that Justice -- Chief Justice Roberts and some of the other institutionalists are going to allow this long-standing practice for being overturned.

BROWN: Yes, you had the 14th Amendment ratified in 1868 with this, right? Then you had the Supreme Court upholding it and a 1898 case, you know, the Trump administration tried but even Paula Reid said herself lawyers are skeptical that the Supreme Court will rule in their favor. There was also something else that happened at the High Court this morning. The Supreme Court declining to hear President Trump's appeal in the E. Jean Carroll sexual abuse case, so what does this mean for the President? HONIG: Well, this means that the one of two E. Jean Carroll cases is over, right? There were two verdicts people will remember for defamation and one of the cases involved alleged sexual assault. The verdict that came out for $5 million has now been upheld. It's over. Donald Trump has to pay E. Jean Carroll $5 million because the Supreme Court declined to take the case. They had actually postponed their decision whether they would take it or not for something like 13 or 14 or 15 times.

And then today they said we are not taking the case, not surprising, it doesn't have a real constitutional dimension. Therefore, the lower court ruling and the verdict the $5 million verdict stands Donald Trump has to pay that to E. Jean Carroll. We still don't know what's going to happen with the other case which resulted in the $80 million verdict. That's still going through the appeals process. But Donald Trump does now have to like it or not. He has to cut a check that E. Jean Carroll is nothing he can do about it.

BROWN: All right, Elie and Cully, thank you both.

HONIG: Back tomorrow. Big day tomorrow.

BLITZER: Yes, we'll be busy.

BROWN: Sure. Yes, we sure will.

[11:12:55]

All right. Still ahead here in The Situation Room, sources tell CNN that Secretary of State Marco Rubio will brief House lawmakers on the war with Iran after a weekend of attacks from both sides. We'll ask Democratic Congressman Josh Gottheimer what he wants to hear from the Trump administration. You're in The Situation Room and we'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Breaking news, sources now say Secretary of State Marco Rubio will brief House lawmakers from both parties today on the tentative agreement with Iran. This comes as President Trump says the U.S. will beat with Iran in Doha Qatar on Tuesday. U.S. officials said both sides agreed to stand down for now that negotiations remained on track after strikes over the weekend. Joining us now Congressman Josh Gottheimer, he's a Democrat from New Jersey. He also serves as the co- chair of what's called the Problem Solvers Caucus in Congress. Good morning Congressman. Thanks so much for joining us. So first of all, what do you expect to hear in this briefing later today?

REP. JOSH GOTTHEIMER (D-NJ): Well, I'd really like to understand what America is actually getting out of this agreement and what position we're in right now. It appears that we've given the store away to Iran. And then just this weekend despite the agreement, they've said the Straits of Hormuz even though it seemed that part of the deal was it would be open to oil and oil tankers were 20 percent of the world's oil goes through. It seems like they've -- they're selectively deciding who can go through. They've also, as you know, over the last days attacked and gone after our bases in Bahrain. They hit Qatari oil ship. It went after our base in Kuwait.

So the question I have is when we seem to be in a position of strength weeks ago. Now, I want to understand what Iran actually gave up and what are they willing to do on their nuclear program on the Straits, on their terror program, on their ballistic missile program, how does America win here?

BLITZER: President Trump says the U.S. will meet officially with Iran in Doha, Qatar on Tuesday, even though Iran previously said no technical talks are scheduled for this week. So how do you see this conflict coming to an end potentially?

GOTTHEIMER: Well, Wolf, as you point out, I mean, part of this challenge is, you know, we've just started a few days ago, the 60-day clock and we've had all these skirmishes since then. And, and this ceasefire seems very fragile. And, you know, despite the fact that there appears to have been an agreement to hold off, we saw Iran attacking immediately, going after oil ships and trying to get through the Straits unclear exactly, again, what we got out of this. This, I guess, moment in Doha will be to try to cool things down, try to get people back at the table.

[11:20:17]

But I really want to understand what will the United States get to protect our national security out of this, both on the oil side, but really in Iran in terms of their terror program, their nuclear program, what exactly have they agreed to? What will they agree to in the over these 60 days and how's that coming along? And of course, their missile program, which continues to rear back up. You know, I really want to understand that's I'm hoping to get out of the briefing today, what exactly where are we and what exactly are we getting out of all this?

BLITZER: The President also said on social media yesterday, and I'm quoting him now, that there may come a point when we are no longer able to be reasonable and we'll be forced to militarily complete the job that we very successfully started. If that happens, the President continued, and I'm still quoting him, the Islamic Republic of Iran will no longer exist. Certainly this isn't the first time the President has made a threat, a sort of a threat like this. What are your concerns when it comes to the President's posture around this war and what it says potentially to other nations, Congressman?

GOTTHEIMER: Well, I think, you know, Wolf, what's been very frustrating as the President, he made dozens of these threats, obviously, and then backed off. But he also, throughout this whole period of time hasn't exactly explained why it's critically important that we crush the government of Iran, we -- the regime there, what they've done to Americans over the years and how they've attacked our bases, gone after our allies, and exactly the threat they pose to the United States. And we -- it still hasn't really been explained.

And so here we are. We now have an agreement for a ceasefire, but we still have questions, again, as I said, about what threats it poses to the United States. And I'm hoping that the President spends more time explaining to the public why it's so critically important that we're aggressive against this regime. The threats they pose, remember, they fly under the banner of death to America. That's been their position.

They've killed Americans, attacked our bases. Their nuclear program is a threat to our country. Their terror program and their proxies, Hamas, Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad have all killed Americans and threaten our interests. They do not believe in our democracy and our freedom. And they've killed tens of thousands of their own people for wanting freedom, right? So you have a lot you're dealing with in this regime. They've not ever been friend.

They haven't been friends, this regime, to our country. They've threatened our country. So the question is, Wolf, what are we going to do to make sure they don't -- that they aren't in a position to threaten our country going forward? And that's really what this is about. And as we look at a very fragile Middle East with a lot of questions right now, we want to make sure that America is in the best place.

BLITZER: And amidst all of this, several key U.S. Supreme Court rulings came down earlier today, just a little while ago. And I want to start with the issue of executive power. The court has more or less expanded presidential power, ruling that the President can indeed now fireflies top government officials, which gives the White House control of potentially dozens of agencies that have long operated independently. What sort of precedent do you think this sets?

GOTTHEIMER: Well, a dangerous one in terms of an agency being independent, if the person can be fired at any time because the President decides to. And obviously, you lose a lot of that independence, as you might imagine, Wolf. I was surprised by that decision. Glad that the Federal Reserve is -- that the court decided the Federal Reserve is independent and outside of that by their decision today as well.

But listen, we have these agencies that Congress set up, and I believe this is really the power of Congress through legislation to set up these agencies to be independent, to make sure that Congress and the executive both can give their thoughts in this process of what they think is best, who they think is best, to make sure they're sitting on these commissions to provide independent counsel and make independent decisions.

And obviously today the court rolled back that independence, which I think will be a hit to obviously, not just to Congress, but really to the American people and ensuring they get the best service.

BLITZER: On the issue of mail-in ballots, Congressman, the justice has also upheld state laws that count mail ballots that arrive after Election Day. That's a unexpected rebuff of President Trump's longstanding attacks on mail in voting. What do you make of that ruling?

GOTTHEIMER: Big day for voting for the country and for people's both right to vote and access to the ballot and to be able to vote. And I think that's what the court said. Like, we want as many Americans as possible to be able to participate in the electoral process, make sure as many citizens are able to vote, make it, why should we make it easier for people rather than harder for that -- rather than harder for them, to vote and mail-in ballots and same day voting.

All these things being able to vote on the same day, but also vote leading into an election make voting easier for people. We should do anything we can, whether that's early voting, mail-in voting or voting same day, anything to get more people to participate in our democratic process, which is obviously key to our country. I think the court today spoke very clearly about not playing games with that.

[11:25:17]

BLITZER: Yes. Mail-in balloting voting so important, especially for military personnel who are stationed around the world.

GOTTHEIMER: Correct. Correct.

BLITZER: Yes. And certainly for elderly people who can't necessarily go out and vote.

GOTTHEIMER: Got older people who can't vote in person, military people. And then of course, people who are working, have jobs on the Election Day itself who need to vote earlier because they got to go to work, right? So the key is why not make it easier for people, if they're citizens, to be able to vote?

BLITZER: A good, good point. All right, thanks very much, Congressman Josh Gottheimer. I appreciate it.

GOTTHEIMER: Thanks for having me Wolf.

BLITZER: Meanwhile -- thank you.

GOTTHEIMER: Meanwhile, I want to get back to the breaking news. Pamela?

BROWN: All right, let's go with our breaking news here. The Supreme Court released some important decisions in the last hour upholding state laws that allow vote counting after Election Day. The justices also ruled that the President doesn't have the constitutional authority to fire Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve Board. But the court expanded the President's power to fire officials, overturning a nearly century old president precedent.

BLITZER: And joining us now, the New York Times White House correspondent Maggie Haberman and the political reporter Jonathan Swan. They are co-authors of a brand new book. Here it is right here. I don't know if you guys have actually seen this, but it's a fabulous book. I've covered the Trump administration going back many years. And reading this book I learned a lot. And you guys should be applauded for writing this excellent book. Thanks very much.

So what do you make of the President's decision praising the Supreme Court decision to expand his powers to fire officials within the executive branch of the government, calling it a big win? MAGGIE HABERMAN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, it's one of the few pieces of good news for him, frankly, out of what we've seen in the rulings so far from the Supreme Court day. This has been a case that has been long in the making by a number of the President's top advisers, a small group of advisers who were preparing for a second Trump term. We write about this actually extensively in the book, how they had looked at, and Jonathan did extensive reporting on this at Axios even before he was at the Times, how they had looked at pockets of independence inside the executive branch, how they believe there is no such thing under the unitary executive theory, that the President controls these so called independent agencies and has the power to make changes there. So this was an expected ruling, but it is a, an affirmation of how Trump has governed and sought to expand executive power.

BLITZER: You know, it's interesting because the Supreme Court also said this morning that it wouldn't hear President Trump's challenge of that $5 billion jury award to E. Jean Carroll for sexual abuse and defamation. Are we likely to hear the last of this case from the President? What do you think?

JONATHAN SWAN, CO-AUTHOR "REGIME CHANGE": I'm reluctant to speculate, but based on our reporting, I think it's unlikely that you've heard the last about it. There are a few things that he was more enraged about than the E. Jean Carroll case. So I don't think you've heard the last of that at all.

BLITZER: What do you think?

HABERMAN: No, I mean, based on our reporting and we write extensively in the book about all of these court cases during the campaign, he was extremely unhappy about the E. Jean Carroll decision and being there for one of the second trial during the primaries, I assume he will say something at some point.

BLITZER: And Maggie, you know Trump, you've covered him and you understand. You think he's actually going to write out a check for $5 million to E. Jean Carroll?

HABERMAN: I'm reluctant to speculate as to whether he will actually do it, but I think that if he does it, it will be under extreme protest.

BLITZER: Yes.

BROWN: He may not have a choice. I want to dig a little.

BLITZER: He doesn't want to break the law.

BROWN: Right, he doesn't want to break the law. And your book is named "Regime Change: Inside the Imperial Presidency of Donald Trump." I emphasize the title because I think it really encapsulate this interaction you had with President Trump. Where you go, you meet with him and he pulls out this document that he says was written by historian. You later find out it's written by a golf caddy where it lists names of historic dictators, some in some cases very brutal dictators, and makes an argument that Trump is more powerful. And so I'm wondering what is your understanding of how Trump views his power and his level of satisfaction, or lack thereof, with the power he currently has?

HABERMAN: It was a remarkable moment sitting in the Oval Office, having him hand us or have an aide hand us this document that you were describing. And he did it because we had asked about how he views his power and how he views his power in the context of past American presidents. It's something he had been talking about privately. We wanted to see if he would talk about it with us.

[11:29:51]

And he was clearly -- he was not making a moral judgment about these people who he was listing off. And he referred to them as the top 10. And it was Stalin, Mao, the Caesars, Attila the Hun, Alexander the Great, Hitler, Napoleon. I mean --