The Supreme Court's Final Cases

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
It's Friday, June twenty seventh. Oya oyao, MG. We start here.
It's the final day of the Supreme Court's term.

Speaker 2 (00:12):
The courts and the government have interpreted the Constitution to
mean if you're born on US soil, you're a US citizen.

Speaker 1 (00:18):
From birthright citizenship to proof of age for porn sites.
We'll tee up the big decisions we expect this morning.
Both signs are giving their closing arguments in the Shawn
Combs case.

Speaker 3 (00:28):
They're comparing Shawn Combs, in effect to a mob boss.

Speaker 1 (00:31):
Did did he do it? A New York jury will
have the case soon, and a destination wedding fit for
a multi billionaire.

Speaker 4 (00:38):
Signage in the middle of Saint Mark's Square demanding that
Bezos pay is taxes.

Speaker 1 (00:42):
Why some in Venice aren't thrilled to be hosting the
wedding of Amazon's founder. From ABC News, This is start here.
I'm Stephen port Noy. Hey, Brad'll be back next Wednesday.
I've got you covered. From DC. The Supreme Court has

(01:02):
done a lot this term. In January, it ruled unanimously
against TikTok, upholding a ban passed by Congress that President
Trump has chosen not to enforce.

Speaker 5 (01:12):
In order to get China too.

Speaker 1 (01:13):
Maybe I'd give them a reduction in tariffs as an example.

Speaker 5 (01:17):
Sounds like sounds like something I did.

Speaker 1 (01:19):
It ruled against the government of Mexico in its efforts
to sue American gun makers. Last week, it ruled in
favor of Tennessee, upholding that state's ban on gender affirming
care for minors.

Speaker 6 (01:29):
This is really scary, like we're not making a world
that trans youth are welcomed or allows to be a part.

Speaker 5 (01:35):
Of the Constitution allows the states to protect kids from
unproven life altering procedures be hind.

Speaker 1 (01:42):
Court wraps up its term today with six cases still
outstanding and some big decisions expected affecting healthcare, parental rights,
online pornography, and the president's efforts to curtail birthright citizenship
in the US. So let's leap right into it and
start the day with ABC's senior Washington reporter Devin Dwyer,
who covered the court. Devin, we've got a big day
of rulings expected today. What do we need to know?

Speaker 2 (02:04):
It's like Christmas, Stephen, I mean, this is the grand
finale of the Supreme Court's term before they head off
to their summer vacations, and boy, they left six goodies
for us to await their decisions on, if you will.
The most consequential ruling we're gonna hear today from the
Supreme Court is whether or not they'll let President Trump
move forward with that executive order ending birthright citizenship.

Speaker 1 (02:26):
This next order relates to the definition of birthright citizenship
under the fourteenth Amendment of the United States.

Speaker 6 (02:31):
Ye, that's a good one. Birthright. That's a big one.

Speaker 2 (02:35):
I mean, for over a century in this country, courts
and the government have interpreted the Constitution to mean if
you're born on US soil, you're a US citizen. Donald Trump,
of course, said, well, that's not correct.

Speaker 4 (02:46):
They use it for people that come into our country
and they walk in and all of a sudden they
become citizens, and they pay a lot of money to
different cartels and others.

Speaker 2 (02:56):
He wants to only limit citizenship to those born to
US citizens or permanent residents. Three judges in three different
states blocked that order universally. They said it is flagrantly unconstitutional.
Of course, there have been three Supreme Court precedents, and
so they put it on hold. And what the Court
will decide today is whether Trump's argument that these individual

(03:17):
judges lack the authority to put a presidential policy on
hold nationwide, whether those judges went too far.

Speaker 5 (03:25):
And the practical problem is that there are six hundred
and eighty district court judges, and they are dedicated, and
they are scholarly, and I'm not impugning their motives in
any way, but you know, sometimes they're wrong.

Speaker 2 (03:37):
And whether these injunctions against Trump's order need to be
rolled back or lifted entirely letting the president begin to
implement this, or whether they were lawful and in fact
important in a case like this to keep it in
place while this issue is being litigated.

Speaker 1 (03:53):
How do you.

Speaker 6 (03:54):
Win this challenge and say there is no nationwide injunction
and it all has to be through individual cases. Then
I can't see how an individual who is not being
treated equivalently to the individual who brought the case would
have any ability to bring the substantive question to us.

Speaker 2 (04:13):
One hundred and fifty thousand kids each year are born
to non citizen parents in this country, Stephen. That's the
scope of the impact we're talking about, But the ripple
effects are much broader.

Speaker 6 (04:24):
Thousands of children who are going to be born without
citizenship papers that could render them stateless in some places.

Speaker 2 (04:33):
But then you have a lot of states saying that
they don't want this and that this has been a problem.
A lot of European countries change their laws over the years.
So this is a debate. But the question that will
find the answer to today is whether individual judges can
block Trump's attempt to change the definition of US citizenship
while this debate continues.

Speaker 1 (04:50):
So I think what you're saying is it may not
be a sweeping ruling having to do with the president's
ability to prevent children born in the US from being
seen as citizens. It may be something more narrow having
to do with nationwide injunctions.

Speaker 2 (05:03):
I think that's right. During the argument just a month ago, Stephen,
the justices, even the conservative justices, didn't give much weight
to this argument that the president's making that birthright citizenship
can be ended.

Speaker 6 (05:16):
On the day after it goes into effect.

Speaker 5 (05:19):
This is just a very practical question how it's going
to work, what do hospitals do with a newborn, what
do states do?

Speaker 2 (05:27):
But they were very focused on how individual judges responded
to his executive order, and so the decision today will
likely focus almost perhaps entirely on that issue, and I
should add that might even be more consequential than the
issue of citizenship itself. If the Court says that individual
judges lack the authority or have limited authority to block

(05:49):
a presidential policy, it could have sweeping effects down the line,
including to a number of policies that have been put
on hold right now, from mass federal layoffs that Trump
wants to do, to funding freezes at the federal agencies,
to some of these deportation protocols. All of those universally
have been paused by federal judges. And if the Supreme

(06:11):
Court comes out later this morning and says that some
of those injunctions are improper, well, that could clear the
way for some of those things to begin taking effect too.

Speaker 1 (06:20):
There are a couple of cases involving hot button social
issues parental rights in Montgomery County, Maryland, just north of DC,
and there's another case from Texas involving access to online porn.
What are those two cases about.

Speaker 2 (06:32):
Yeah, those cases out of Montgomery County, Maryland really tackles
the question of do parents have a constitutional right to
opt out their kids from any classroom instruction that they
feel violates their religion. The case from Montgomery County involves
a group of parents Christians, Muslims, Jews who said they
don't want their kids exposed to any LGBTQ themes in

(06:55):
elementary school. No books, no discussion, no nothing, and that
if it comes up, they want to be notified so
they can pull their kids out. Lower courts said parents
have no such right to micromanage public schools and that
exposure to diverse viewpoints and ideas is part of public education.
But these parents, in a very religious freedom friendly Supreme Court,

(07:19):
are hoping that the justices will see it differently in
a similar case for parents Stephen out of Texas closely
watched as to whether states can do more to protect
kids from accessing pornography. Adult websites online obviously exploding in popularity.
It's easier to access than ever before now with the
rise of smartphones and almost every teenager's pocket, and the

(07:42):
question on the table is can states require those websites
to check your ID online, to have you upload a
copy of your ID, even undergo a facial scan in
order to access that constitutionally protected material For adults, kids
don't have a right to the material adults do. And
so we'll see today where that balancing act comes out

(08:03):
when this Court issues its decision.

Speaker 1 (08:07):
And lastly, Devin, we did have a case yesterday involving
funding for Planned Parenthood. What did the Court decign?

Speaker 2 (08:13):
This was a blow to Planned Parenthood for sure, Stephen,
and also a huge victory for an effort to defund
Planned Parenthood, particularly in conservative states. The state of South
Carolina kicked Planned Parenthood off of its Medicaid program back
in twenty eighteen. They said Medicare beneficiary's patients in the

(08:33):
state could not go to Planned Parenthood to get non
abortion services things like cancer screenings or contraception medicine or
even a checkup, that it was disqualified, cutting off some
of the financial benefits to those clinics. And they sued,
and so did an individual beneficiary, and the Supreme Court
didn't agree with them. And the Supreme Court said that

(08:54):
there is no right to sue a state over access
to a particular clinic, even though the Medicaid Act says
that all Americans have a right to their preferred provider.
The Court, in the six to three decision, which broke
along any logical line, said there was no specific language
in federal law which gave people the right to sue
overseeing the doctor of their choice.

Speaker 1 (09:16):
Their conservatives were very pleased with the outcome in that case.
If you're listening to this after ten am Eastern and
you want to know how today's cases have turned out,
bring up ABC News Live and be sure to catch
Devon's analysis in real time. Devin Dwyer, thanks so much.

Speaker 2 (09:29):
You bet Steve thinks?

Speaker 1 (09:32):
Next up on start here? Did he do it? Jury
said to get the Shawn Combs case, that's after the break.
For a month and a half now, jurors have been
hearing the case of the US versus Sean Combs. The
rap icon better known as Diddy, is charged with five
counts in a federal indictment that accuses him of leading

(09:54):
a racketeering conspiracy as the alleged head of an enterprise
that involved kidnapping, trafficking, arson, and yes, all those freak
offs you've heard so much about. After six weeks of testimony,
closing arguments in the case began yesterday, ABC's chief investigative correspondent,
Aaron Katirski's been following this case from the start. He
joins us from outside the federal Courthouse in Lower Manhattan, Aaron,

(10:16):
how did prosecutors sum up their case?

Speaker 3 (10:18):
They did it over nearly five hours, Stephen, trying to
tie together what had been a sprawling presentation of evidence
over seven weeks from thirty four different witnesses, and prosecutor
Christy Slavic tried to tell the jury it was just
time to convict Sean Colmes as charged. She said there
was ample evidence for the jury to believe that he

(10:41):
coerced Cassie Ventura and another woman who was known by
the pseudonym Jane, into these sex marathons aided by drugs,
with male prostitutes while he watched masturbated, recorded, and directed.
And the jury saw evidence, Stephen, of some of these

(11:02):
freak offs. They saw video footage nearly an hour of
it all told, and they heard evidence about hundreds of
these encounters. The one thing about the government's summation, Stephen,
is just how clear the prosecutor made it that the
law is against Shawn Combs, just one freak off, just

(11:23):
two predicate acts, and the jury heard dozens of instances
when it was pretty clear that Shawn Comb's or his
employees were peddling drugs and prosecutors told the jury it
doesn't have to be kilos, it can just be one pill.
There's no amount that's necessary here for the predicate act

(11:45):
of drug offenses. So, in effect, prosecutors were signaling to
the jury it's easy to convict.

Speaker 1 (11:51):
Now we know these allegations involved these these freak offs
with male prostitutes and the painful testimony from these women
that Combs abused them. But how what are prosecutors saying
that this amounts to racketeering because that's a charge that
is used against the head of a racket. Who else
are they saying was involved in this conspiracy?

Speaker 3 (12:08):
Yeah, they're comparing Shawn Colmbs an effect to a mob boss,
because the prosecution believes that Shawn Combs ran his business
like a criminal enterprise, relying on a cadre of loyal lieutenants,
whether it's business people who handled his bank accounts and
his travel arrangements, his assistance, his bodyguards, his chief of staff,

(12:30):
a woman by the name of Christina Korum. They're all
portrayed as unindicted co conspirators. It was his kingdom, the
prosecutor said in summations. They were all there to serve him,
to say yes to him because she said Shawn Colmes
did not take no for an answer. And Stephen, they

(12:51):
laid out these so called predicate acts that the jury
could use to establish the racketeer and conspiracy. There are
more than a half dozen of them, and the jury
only needs to find that Shawn Combs conspired with another
person to commit Two of the predicate acts could be drugs.

(13:13):
They heard evidence that Shawn Colmbs provided ecstasy in molly
and cocaine to Jane and to Cassie Ventura. Could be arson.
They heard evidence that Kid Cutty's car was blown up
after Colmbs became jealous of his relationship with Cassie Ventura.
It could be bribery. Everyone has seen the hotel security
footage by now of Shawn Colmes attacking Cassie Ventura, and

(13:35):
prosecutors said Colmbs and members of his inner circle wanted
to make sure that footage never got out.

Speaker 1 (13:41):
So all through this five hour summation, Sean did he
Colmbs is sitting at the defense table listening. How did
he react?

Speaker 3 (13:47):
He was rather calm, Stephen, and occasionally he would write
notes to his lawyers if he heard something that he
may not have liked. He gestured to his family, put
his hand over his heart. The courtroom was packed for this,
busier than it's been really since the early days of
the trial. His twin daughters, all six of his children
in fact, were there, His mother and he, in fact,

(14:08):
at one point gestured for all of them to squeeze
together to make room. He's been reading a book, The
Power of Positive Thinking. But Stephen, there was a moment
when Seawn Combs slid his chair far back from the
defense table. His head was down, as if thinking, perhaps
reading notes. We couldn't quite tell, but it seemed as

(14:29):
if he took a moment alone, listening to prosecutors implore
the jury of eight men and four women to find
him guilty as charged.

Speaker 1 (14:39):
So the defense gets its opportunity to give its closing
argument today, based on what you've heard and seen over
the course of the trial, how do you expect that
they'll plant doubt in the minds of that jury.

Speaker 3 (14:48):
The defense called no witnesses, remember, Instead, they relied on
cross examination of the government witnesses to raised doubt, to
poke holes. And the defense said that the women Shawn
Holmes allegedly trafficked were in fact long term girlfriends who
were willing participants in what they called a polyamorous lifestyle.

(15:08):
And both women testified that they were willing at times
and that they wanted to please calms. But prosecutors said
that didn't matter because the jury only needs to find
one instance where the women were coerced.

Speaker 1 (15:24):
So when do we think the jury's going to get
the case?

Speaker 3 (15:26):
As soon as Friday afternoon at the earliest, Stephen, But
more likely it's going to be next week. After the
defense closings, the government has an opportunity to give a
rebuttal that's followed by the judges instructions on the law,
and only then can this jury begin deliberations.

Speaker 1 (15:42):
All right, we should notice this trial winds down. You
can check out ABC Audio's podcast bad Rap the Case
against Diddy. Were all the latest developments in the case.
Eric Gaturski at Federal Court in New York. Thank you
so much.

Speaker 3 (15:52):
Thank you, Steven.

Speaker 1 (15:54):
Okay, one more quick break when we come back. Wedding
bells are ringing through the canals of Venice. Thing is next,
and one last thing. A wedding is always a joyous occasion.
It's a celebration of love and a destination. Wedding it's
even better. But when it's one of the world's richest

(16:17):
men who's getting married, wedding crashers might include the paparazzi
and even protesters. Amazon founder Jeff Bezos is marrying his
longtime partner Lauren Sanchez this weekend in Venice, Italy, the
city famous for its canals and water taxis. The wedding
has attracted the likes of Oprah, the Kardashians, Jared Kushner,

(16:37):
and Avanka Trump.

Speaker 4 (16:38):
Celebrities are dressed, you know, beyond the nines, and all
day it has been sweltering, le hot. I cannot stress
this enough. I mean sweat dripping down your body.

Speaker 1 (16:50):
At CBC's Maggie Ruley covering the event in Venice, Hey, Maggie,
are you on a gondola right now?

Speaker 4 (16:55):
I am sadly not on a gondola and I did
not get invited to the wedding of the year, which
I still am very upset about. But don't feel too bad.
I have had gelatos regularly while being here and trying
to cite some celebs, you know.

Speaker 1 (17:09):
One of our cheeky colleagues in London called it a
wedding of the haves and have yachts.

Speaker 4 (17:13):
One luxury wedding planner that we spoke with who works
here in Italy, has sort of described it to me
as that. She says, you know, a high profile wedding
is always stressful in Venice. She calls it sort of
this logistical puzzle where all the pieces have to come together,
everyone has to travel on water. You're dealing with these
ancient buildings that all have really strict preservation laws that
can't be broken. It's also really confined old cities, so

(17:36):
if you're looking for space for a huge party, space
is limited.

Speaker 1 (17:40):
Still, there's always room for discontent, and the largess of
all this has attracted plan.

Speaker 4 (17:51):
Jeff Bezos is bringing money, we have been told, but
US citizens do not need the money of a super
rich man.

Speaker 3 (17:56):
For our city.

Speaker 4 (17:57):
We need a healthy and fair economic system.

Speaker 1 (18:02):
Many Venetians have spent the week protesting the grandiose event,
taking issue with the celebrity takeover of their island city
as well as the amount of money that's being spent.

Speaker 4 (18:12):
The idea of over tourism here is a big concern. Also,
the cost of living is a crisis here right now
in Venice. They've really latched on around to the fact
that a billionaire's wedding is happening here. We've seen them
take over some of the landmarks here and furling a
big signage in the middle of Saint Mark's Square demanding
that Bezos pays taxes. It is said, if you can
afford a wedding here to be able to pay more tax.

Speaker 1 (18:33):
Some protesters have gotten pretty creative.

Speaker 4 (18:35):
There was a Bezos mannequin that someone strapped to an
Amazon box and then floated it down the Grand Canal,
so definitely visual points on that one.

Speaker 1 (18:46):
Bezos and Sanchez say they're giving three million euro to
local charities, and they're relying on Venetian artisans and vendors
for most of the affair. An invitation seen by ABC
News urges guests to make donations in lieu of gifts.
Protests are not the ceremonious rumored to be happening tonight,
with events expected through the weekend, but a bigger challenge
for the couple and their guests may be the weather.

Speaker 4 (19:09):
The weather appears to be full sunshine, reaching ninety degrees
every single day, so I think we're prepared for more
sweltering heat, maybe another rainstorm, though I think they say
that's good luck on your wedding day, right.

Speaker 1 (19:23):
While it rained on my wedding day nine years Still
go and straw start here, as produced by Kelly Terre's
Birthday Girl, Jen Newman, Anthony ali, Emira Williams, Aaron Ferrare
and Madeline Wood. Ariel Chesters our social media producer. Josh
Cohen is Director of podcast Programming. Brad Milk is our
managing editor, Laura Mayers our executive producer. Thanks to John Newman,

(19:44):
Tara Gimble and Lizz Alessi. Special thanks this week to
Trevor Hasticks for the vacation in Brad Milky. I'm Stephen
port Nooy. Have a great weekend. Sh