Return to Transcripts main page


Supreme Court Upholds Trump Travel Ban. Aired 10:30-11a ET

Aired June 26, 2018 - 10:30   ET


[10:30:00] JEFF ZELENY, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Much of this commentary obviously has been about the president's own comments online, on social media, as John King was just saying there. The president of course went after these, you know, revised versions of the travel ban.

Do not look for him to do that today. He will claim victory today. He will talk about how this was the right idea. And this goes back to one of the very fundamental issues that he ran on. In the campaign, at the end of 2015, when he was just rising in the Republican Party, at a rally in Mount Pleasant, South Carolina, on the USS York Towne. He first announced his Muslim ban. Of course it had, you know, many twists and turns along the way. It was viewed as unconstitutional. It was ham-handed, no question.

But the president in the words of a senior administration official who has spoken to him calls this vindication. And, Wolf, that's what I expect the president to say himself shortly in the White House statement or most likely on Twitter -- Wolf.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Yes, I suspect you're absolutely right.

Neera Tanden is the president of the Center for American Progress. Vindication, the White House says vindication right now. They clearly see this as a victory.

NEERA TANDEN, PRESIDENT, CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS: Sure. I would say that when you add North Korea and Venezuela essentially what happened over the last year and a half is that the Justice Department tried to make this not a Muslim ban. In fact, the solicitor general argued that it was not a Muslim ban. Obviously if you look at the full history of this, it was targeted at Muslims originally. But the idea that the president has a victory when his own solicitor general has to say it's not a Muslim ban, I think actually shows that the court is not going along with a Muslim ban, but a travel ban writ large.

Now I think there are key objections to that. And the minority dissent opinion I think really states that if you look at the history of this, it really is targeted toward Muslims and that's pernicious. But this is very different than what Donald Trump campaigned on.

BLITZER: Breyer and Sotomayor, they're reading their dissenting opinions as we speak right now. Jason Miller is with us, our CNN political commentator, former Trump for President senior communications adviser. How do you see this decision? JASON MILLER, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, this is obviously a

huge win for the president. And I think it's easy to narrow cast this and look at it as being President Trump versus the Supreme Court or just in that context. But it's important to keep in mind these are a set of policies in securing the border and trying to keep the country safe, that the president ran on and campaigned on in 2016. So it's not just President Trump, it's all of his supporters that sign on to the policies of trying to make the country safer. So I think this is important to look at in the bigger context and obviously the constitutionality is going to be decided by the Supreme Court as we saw today as opposed --


BLITZER: But you would agree -- you agree that this third version is way different than what the president initially had in mind?

MILLER: Oh, it is different. I think it's much smarter. I think the addition of North Korea and Venezuela I think is smarter because of the national security concerns we had there. I think it's also important to keep in mind the context that it doesn't mean that these countries are going to be on there indefinitely. We have already seen Chad drop from the list and talking with a senior administration official about this yesterday, that's primarily over information sharing between the countries for our being able to screen and know exactly who is coming into the U.S.

And I think even the broader point as we step out, going back to something that Nia mentioned a moment ago, the current ongoing debate with our southern border. I think this also gives the White House a win at a time where it really needs one because it allows the president to talk about this in terms of overall national security and not just this one decision.

EVAN PEREZ, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: By the way, Wolf, Justice Roberts in his opinion makes reference to the fact that Chad was dropped and makes mention of countries that have had cooperative agreements with the United States to share information and in that way have frankly made this a more nuanced thing. One interesting thing about this opinion is that Justice Roberts takes the opportunity to compare President Trump's words with those of George W. Bush after the 9/11 attacks.

He mentions, for instance, that George W. Bush days after the 9/11 attack goes to the Islamic center -- an Islamic mosque, essentially, nearby, and implores Muslims to have faith, that essentially their faith is the same as ours and tries to unify the country. And Justice Roberts writes, "Yet it cannot be denied that the federal government and the presidents who have carried these laws into effect have from the nation's earliest days performed unevenly in living up to those inspiring words."

He's essentially drawing a contrast between the words of Donald Trump the candidate and some of the Twitter rants that the president has had over the last year and a half or so, with those of the president of the United States who took us through and saw us through those really dark days after 9/11. And really makes a contrast of that language, which I think is very interesting coming from Justice Roberts.


TANDEN: I mean, I would just say to that, it sounds to me that the court is basically critiquing the president's attacks on Muslims and issuing this decision despite that critique.

PEREZ: Right.

[10:35:05] TANDEN: Saying he has this power, so, you know, basically in their words they're sanctioning what he said and his attacks on Muslims, but say because of the addition of North Korea, Venezuela, this is a very different kind of thing from a Muslim ban.

BLITZER: The restrictions, I should point out in this third version, involving North Korea are complete, just as they are with Syria and some of the Muslim majority countries. The restrictions enveloping Venezuela are relatively modest, only certain Venezuelan government officials and their family members are denied.

JOHN KING, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: If you read what the court is saying is once the professionals took over the process, they got it right.


KING: And within the limits of presidential power. As Jason says, they made it nuanced, they made it case by case, country by country. Circumstances can change if a country improves its vetting or improves its communication, circumstances change. If you take that version, it is, even most Democrats would concede within a president's power, to invoke presidential authority on immigration and similar issues in the name of national security.

If you go back to what the president said during the campaign.


KING: And what was said in the early January 2017, just after the inauguration, there was no nuance, there was no gray, there was no case by case. It was more of a blanket we promised this in the campaign, we're going to do it.

TANDEN: I would say, it's still a 5-4 decision. I mean, it's a hotly contested decision. So I think it is by having so many -- having four justices dissent, I think even this version raises significant concerns.

PEREZ: I think one thing we might want to also mention here is the fact that there is a group of people who are watching this decision very closely. They live in Syria. They're refugees, they are people who are in Turkey, and other countries who are waiting to see whether or not the Supreme Court perhaps lifts some very tough restrictions that we have right now on people from those countries, refugees who have been waiting for years for resettlement. And I think this is obviously doesn't make any changes for them. BLITZER: Well, because as far as Syria is concerned, entry as

immigrants and non-immigrants is suspended completely. They're not coming --

PEREZ: It is a tough day for those people, Wolf, because they're going to be waiting a long time.

BLITZER: Right. They're going to be waiting a long time, especially in the aftermath of this 5-4 decision.

Jeffrey Toobin, the chief justice, Justice Roberts, says the president of the United States possesses an extraordinary power to speak to his fellow citizens and on their behalf. And as a result, he decides that the president is within his constitutional right to go ahead and impose this travel ban.

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: Indeed. That's what the opinion said. But, Wolf, I'd like to just call attention to a brief concurring opinion, filed by Justice Kennedy, who, you know, was obviously the swing vote in this case, and the conclusion of this -- the conclusion of this opinion, I think, is very interesting for several reasons. And if I could just read a couple of sentences here.

He says -- talks about how the First Amendment is so important, and he writes, "It is an urgent necessity that officials adhere to these constitutional guarantees and mandates in all their actions, even in the sphere of foreign affairs. An anxious world must know that our government remains committed always to the liberties the Constitution seeks to preserve and protect so that freedom extends outward and lasts."

I don't think it is an over-reading of that to read it as a shot at Donald Trump, to read it as saying, you know what, presidents need to speak in a way that reflects the constitutional values of the United States. Anthony Kennedy is not just any justice on this court. He is the most important justice in terms of the outcome of the -- of cases, he's also 81 years old and we're waiting anxiously to learn whether he retires at the end of this year and hands his precious seat on the court to Donald Trump, to fill.

This message suggests a certain degree of unhappiness with Donald Trump. He voted to uphold the travel ban, but this statement that presidents need -- officials in Kennedy's words need to express their support for the Constitution suggests a level of discomfort with President Trump, which may, and I signal just may, may indicate that Kennedy is not so happy with Trump and may not yet be ready to turn over his seat to him. We'll find out tomorrow presumably.

BLITZER: Yes. That's a very important point, Jeffrey. And let me read from the dissent from Sonia Sotomayor, the associate justice. She goes further than Justice Kennedy. Kennedy with the majority, Sotomayor with the minority. Quote, "The majority here completely sets aside the president's charged statements about Muslims as irrelevant. That holding erodes the fundamental principles of religious tolerance that the court elsewhere has so empathetically protected. And it tells members of minority religions in our country that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community."

[10:40:06] A strong dissent, Jeffrey, from Sonia Sotomayor.

TOOBIN: Absolutely. And, you know, we cannot overstate the importance of what Mitch McConnell did. I know you all mentioned that earlier. But, you know, this term we have seen so many 5-4 decisions with Anthony Kennedy, and Neil Gorsuch in the majority, in a conservative direction. There is another opinion today about abortion rights, in terms of whether California can inform women who are going to these pro-life health clinics, that they have the right to an abortion.

The Supreme Court said that was unconstitutional in an opinion by Clarence Thomas. Over and over again, the court ruled in a conservative direction, certainly the travel ban case is an illustration of that. And the fact that Neil Gorsuch is on the Supreme Court and not Merrick Garland has an earth shaking significance day after day in this court and you know, as we think about the events of the past two years or now starting to be three years, you know, the significance of Barack Obama being denied the chance to fill a seat in his fourth year as president, it only grows in significance.

BLITZER: It is a very important point. You know, John --

KING: The Trump base hates Mitch McConnell. If you travel the country, if you look at Republican polling, if you listen to the president's own words and tweets sometimes against the Republican establishment, he stokes this anger at the establishment and particularly at the Senate all the time and the Trump base if you ask them, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell? Mitch McConnell might come out on the bottom and yet to Jeffrey's point about the consequences of McConnell's decision in the last year of the Obama administration playing out again for you, huge.

BLITZER: Another quote from the dissenting opinion, Sonia Sotomayor, "Our Constitution demands and our country deserves a judiciary willing to hold the coordinate branches to account when they defy our most sacred legal commitments."

So let me get your reaction.

MILLER: Well, and that's the dissenting opinion. I mean, the fact of the matter is the president still won here 5-4 and yes, the country is divided and we're still debating a whole number of these policies. Let's not try to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory here. I mean, the fact of the matter is that President Trump won today. This is going to be a huge win and it's going to reset I think the entire current news cycle that we're in as making this more about national security and immigration security as opposed to some of the images we've seen over the past week. And so, again, I'll just say that I understand that certain justices might be cranky in this matter. But that's too bad.

(CROSSTALK) KING: Do you think the family separation executive order was drawn up in the style of version one of the travel ban or version three of the travel ban? Again, what's going to happen when that goes to court?

MILLER: As far as the zero tolerance policy, enforcing at the border, I've already been on the record that it's critical to DHS. It wasn't ready to implement it.

BLITZER: All right. Let me just --


BLITZER: The president of the United States has now officially reacted to the Supreme Court 5-4 decision on Twitter, of course. The president writes this, in all caps. "Supreme Court upholds Trump travel ban, wow." You see it right there. Wow with an exclamation point.

Neera, go ahead.

TANDEN: You know, I think -- I think we should just separate ourselves from the reality of the -- the reality TV show that we're dealing with, which is that Donald Trump acts like the Supreme Court is a thumbs up or thumbs down movie determination or something like that. What's happened in this case is a very divisive case, his travel ban had to be changed multiple times. But the reality is that there is a lot of people who's going to read this case and read the president's remarks and think that it's OK to target Muslims. That is what a lot of people will come out of this case and I think that is egregious.

To the extent that we're talking about the separate issue of family separation, I think the reality is this court and the determination of this court, what the president has done and his policies as unconstitutional and illegal. And the idea that these -- that you're conflating these two issues is I think a little absurd.

MILLER: No, but I'm saying, the point is that what President Trump is trying to do is he's trying to secure our border. He's trying to make sure that we have some kind of control over who comes into the country. And I think that's what he was trying to do both with the travel ban, I think that's what he's trying to do with the flow of illegal immigration at the southern border, that's something that President Trump clearly ran on and something that he's implementing right now.

TANDEN: Yes, and I would just say the idea of separating children from their parents --

BLITZER: Hold on for a moment. Manu Raju is up on Capitol Hill with Senator Corey Booker.

Give us the reaction, Manu?

SEN. COREY BOOKER (D), MASSACHUSETTS: -- you know, religion-based travel ban, it makes no sense when you look at the countries in terms of security, it really was about our safety.

[10:45:05] It would be a different list, two different tailored lists. But, again, this stems from a person that started their campaign talking about Mexicans and Muslims and in a way that just disappoints me. I'm just coming back from the border. So I'm still just emotionally raw with what I saw down there and, you know, we need to reclaim our values. And I'm not saying it's not partisan values, it's not Democratic or Republican. We're a good nation, we're a good people, and we should be setting a standard on this planet of what humanity should be about.

And there is an ideal that you have to balance security, obviously, but an ideal that runs through so many faiths, simply love thy neighbor. There's no exceptions after that. And, you know, we have darker chapters, but we have some incredible chapters of light in which we have done that and opened up our arms to people who are escaping tyranny and violence and famine.

And we are a stronger nation because of histories of Irish-Americans, Eastern European Americans, so many different blood lines in this country that have all performed the fabric of who we are. I just feel like this president is assaulting that day after day with this rhetoric and with his policy actions.

MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: They had to revise this travel ban, so it is not targeting specifically just Muslims and Muslim nations. I mean, can you really say that this is actually a Muslim ban?

BOOKER: Well, this is what I can say is, thank God we are not a nation of tyranny because presidents tried multiple times and his efforts have been diluted by the court system and by good meaning people. He was not able to do what he wanted to do. This represents in many ways a retreat from his original position, which was banning people based upon religion. So he tried again and again and again and he finally found something that they were able to tailor to get through -- it seems constitutional muster.

I still disagree with the decision and the outcome. But I think we cannot -- we just cannot walk away from the fact of how this all started, which was a president that said he wanted to ban Muslims from our country. And we're a nation that has had Muslims as part of our nation for entire history. Great scientists, great athletes, from Muhammad Ali to people who are some of our greatest heroes, and this is a person that wants to use something that our founders rejected, which is a religious test.

And, again, there is a moral assault and moral vandalism going on, and I saw this yesterday on our border, and I'm going to do everything I can to fight for our values. There are really, to me, some of the deepest things I love about my country.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Do you think that this decision would have still been up -- the travel ban would have still been upheld if Merrick Garland would have been given consideration? BOOKER: I think that the Merrick Garland chapter is a sad one. And

it was a very moderate choice. And something happened to the judiciary now that is unfortunate. I'm seeing this on the Judiciary Committee about the moderate judges being chosen now, we're seeing a lot more extreme folks going along. I'm worried about that.

BLITZER: All right. We're going to continue to get more reaction from Capitol Hill. But, Manu, very, very, very strong reaction from Senator Corey Booker. You're getting reaction from others up on Capitol Hill as well.

RAJU: Yes, that's right. You know, we're talking to Republicans and Democrats about this. They're still absorbing the details about this. A lot of them heading into committee hearings as this news was breaking. But you're hearing a breakdown along party lines, Republicans in large part so far very supportive of this decision, including Senator John Cornyn, who just moments ago told me this is not a Muslim ban, much different than what Corey Booker said, this is what Senator Cornyn said earlier.


RAJU: Are you concerned about the message this may send to the rest of the world, particularly the Muslim world?

SEN. JOHN CORNYN (R), MAJORITY WHIP: I tell you, this is part of the never Trump resistance to mischaracterize this as being a Muslim ban. This is not a Muslim ban. It's not anything that President Obama didn't do when he was president. So I'm not surprised the Supreme Court ruled the way they did.

RAJU: His rhetoric has been much more strident to Muslims, that kind of rhetoric combined with this ruling. Are you concerned about the message?

CORNYN: I think he was trying to keep the country safe.


RAJU: So that's really a breakdown of what you're seeing, Wolf. Booker just said, what Cornyn said, how members are absorbing this decision. You're hearing some Democrats like Dick Blumenthal saying just moments ago earlier that he wants to propose legislation to try to overturn this 5-4 ruling but, of course, doing that, in this Congress, Republican-controlled Congress, with this president getting that approved very unlikely, very, very unlikely to happen. So right now we're hearing the political argument, but breakdown along party lines, much like this, very divided Supreme Court just this morning -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Yes, 5-4 decision upholding the president's travel. And let's go back to Neera and Jason.

[10:50:02] Neera, this is an important victory for the Trump administration. TANDEN: I hear that -- I actually think what's interesting about this

case is it is going to create a lot of anxiety and anger. And I think you saw in Corey Booker's remarks, Senator Booker's remarks the level of opposition that will go. You know, the courts have been traditionally an issue that conservative activists have been focused on. I think the fact that you have a situation where we have 5-4 decision, a 5-4 decision, a 5-4 decision, all that would have probably been reversed in Merrick Garland had taken the seat, is going to amplify the voices and concerns of progressive activists into these midterms about the judiciary itself.

BLITZER: Because the reaction is largely, as Manu points out, following along partisan lines, the Democrats are unhappy with this decision, the Republicans are happy with the 5-4 decision.

MILLER: Well, and Wolf, that's talking specifically to lawmakers on Capitol Hill, as Manu was talking to. But if you go through the broader public across the country, President Trump's travel ban was actually pretty popular. Some polling that showed as high as 60 percent of the American public was supportive of these efforts to --

BLITZER: You're talking about the original idea he put forward as a candidate? Is that what you're talking about?

MILLER: I'm talking later on. From polling --

BLITZER: Because the original idea, we have that clip. Let me play that clip for you because this is what he originally proposed. This is on December 7th, 2015, as a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination. Listen to this.


DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on.


BLITZER: That's what he originally wanted. Now in order to get something through the U.S. Supreme Court, they had to change that dramatically.

MILLER: Well, and obviously it was changed from both the time that it was first introduced into the third iteration, as we have discussed, but the public is supportive of this broader policy. And again there's not going to be massive protests out on the streets of people saying we need to go and allow people in from countries like Libya, or North Korea or Venezuela without fully vetting them. I think that's important to keep in mind here.

The reason why this is in place because we don't have the information sharing, we don't have the knowledge and the certainty that these people are safe that are coming into the country. If they can get it resolved, then great, the administration has already shown that they will drop countries from that list. But if they can't, we shouldn't just be rolling over and allow from anyone from some other country to be able to come into the United States without full vetting. That's ridiculous.

BLITZER: I'll just raise, John, how significant and important a presidential decision on who should sit on the U.S. Supreme Court. Nine numbers is. And why that could have an impact not just for four years or eight years, but for 30 or 40.

KING: A presidential decision. And in this case, perhaps even more so the Senate majority leader's decision in the sense that once Donald Trump was replacing Antonin Scalia, it was a conservative for a conservative. If President Obama had a chance to replace Antonin Scalia, you would have had a very different judge and Neera makes the point, we don't know how Merrick Garland would have ruled.

Merrick Garland might have respected presidential authority in this case. And like John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy lectured the president a little bit, even as they said you have this authority, we don't know that.

TANDEN: Right.

KING: We don't know that but there are other decisions as well. A lot of that 5-4 decisions that one could definitely say some would have gotten the other way this term without a doubt, but Mitch McConnell blocked Merrick Garland, took a lot of heat for it especially from Democrats. Some conservatives, some Republicans raised, is that the smart way to do it? Team Mitch, his Senate campaign committee, tweeted out just as this decision came out a photo of Mitch McConnell shaking hands with Neil Gorsuch at their first meeting up on Capitol Hill.

So they are very proud of this moment . They think political it is a win for them. For the policy standpoint that Evan raised earlier about what happens now? You know, what happens now, will anything change about incoming policy, so there's a big policy conversation to be had about how this impacts the president's power and what happens to Syrian refugees or people from North Korea or people from Yemen, for that matter, and then there's the political conversation which to Neera's point we'll see how close to the midterms.

TANDEN: I think the fact that Mitch McConnell tweeted out that picture is like he's thumbing his nose. I mean, he's rallying conservatives because his strategy over the summer is to just really more and more conservative judges through the system. That's all the Senate really wants to do --

BLITZER: There's the picture you see it. That's what he tweeted. Mitch McConnell tweeted.

TANDEN: But I have to say, liberals, progressives, Democrats in the country do not forget what happened to Merrick Garland. And I think the fact that this is the response that we're seeing in all these cases in which they are ruling in a particular way is going to create more and more energy on the progressive side around the court. MILLER: I don't know "Remember Merrick Garland" sure doesn't sound

like a rallying cry --

TANDEN: No, it's remember Merrick Garland, it's remember what -- Donald Trump's victory today, his, quote, tweet is a reminder that you have to vote.

KING: In the rear view mirror Hillary Clinton did raise this issue in the campaign. And Donald Trump raised this issue.

[10:55:02] In the rear-view mirror, the Republicans have won if the issue is that the courts or immigration, the Republicans have a history of using that as a wedge issue in elections. Can Democrats change the table in 2018?

TANDEN: Look, I mean, if you look at polling in the last couple days on immigration, immigration is actually motivating. Family separation issues are actually motivating Democrats to vote more than Republicans.

BLITZER: You know, it's interesting, Evan, this is now the decision by the United States Supreme Court. Does this set the stage if the president of the United States wants to bring in other countries and have restrictions on individuals from those countries coming into the United States? Muslim majority countries or other countries. It opens the door for the president to do precisely that if he wants to expand that list of seven right now.

PEREZ: Right. As long as -- as John keeps point out, as long as they do the vetting of the president's order, if they make sure that the lawyers are involved, and not just Stephen Miller writing this on the back of a piece of paper.

Look, the practical effect of this is really moot, right? The fact is that the travel ban is in effect already, was already in effect, the Supreme Court had allowed it to continue to be in effect. And by the way, only with a couple defense from Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justice Sotomayor., So it appears that the majority of the court was already OK with having this version of the travel ban already in effect. So, you know, this is not a huge, huge surprise.

But I think to Jason's point, Jason points out that I think this allows the president and the White House to reset the conversation in light of what is happening on the border. And I think it all depends on how they go forward with whatever this policy is. It's still sort of muddy exactly what -- exactly they're trying to do.

The Justice Department says that they are not going to be continuing to prosecute parents. The Homeland Security Department says not so much, so we'll see whether or not the policy becomes clearer and whether it can withstand the court challenge.

HENDERSON: And whether the president -- I mean, the president hasn't always been very respectful of the judicial system, even with all this talk about immigration and folks coming from the southern border. There have been proposals to add more judges. He has said, we don't really need more judges and these folks coming across the border aren't even due a judicial sort of review. So we'll see what he does.

BLITZER: Big picture, Jeffrey Toobin, and you've studied the U.S. Supreme Court for a long time. Put this decision today, 5-4 decision, upholding the president's ban in perspective.

TOOBIN: This is what happens when Republicans get to appoint justices to the Supreme Court. There are a greater respect for presidential power and a lesser concern with individual rights. That has been consistent over time. These are legitimate concerns on both sides, but as many senators like to point out, elections have consequences and this decision is one of the major consequences. The fact that the president engaged in this travel ban and the fact that the Supreme Court upheld it is an important illustration of why it matters that Donald Trump is president and Hillary Clinton isn't.

BLITZER: We got a statement, Jeffrey, from Neal Katyal. He argued against the president's travel ban. He says the process worked. He was disappointed, but then he says this, Jeffrey, and I want your reaction, "While we continue to believe that this third version fails that test, there's no question that by striking down the first two travel bans, the judiciary forced a recalcitrant administration to at least give its order the veil of constitutionality." Your reaction?

TOOBIN: I think that's true. And, you know, one of the things that's been illustrated by the Donald Trump presidency is that resilience of institutions that have pushed back against Donald Trump. One of them is the courts. I mean, obviously here, he won in the Supreme Court, but only after other courts, lower courts pushed back against him.

The press has been a check on Donald Trump. Colleges and universities, religious institutions, which have been very active in the immigration fight, they too have played a part in responding to Donald Trump's presidency. So yes, the presidency is very important in this country, but it doesn't control everything, and the story of the travel ban, the full story, not just today's opinion, I think illustrates the resilience of our institutions.

BLITZER: An important decision today by the United States Supreme Court, a decision that will be studied, and we have just got the actual text, John King. If you see it, go ahead and read this whole document for us and let us know how it works out.

KING: Old school, baby. On paper.

BLITZER: Yes. We got the whole thing right here.

We're going to continue of course our special coverage throughout the day, an important United States Supreme Court decision, 5-4 upholding President Trump's travel ban. We'll have much more coverage on that.

That's it for me, I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington. Thanks to our entire reporters and our analysts. Kate Bolduan picks up our special coverage of the breaking news right now.

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN Breaking News.

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, everyone.