generational, right. some of theounger party activists are more likely to be in your face. you see the same thing in impeachment. >> we'll have the president for you any second. wolf takes over. he starts right now. have a great day. hello, i'm wolf blitzer in washington. wherever you're watching from around the world, thanks very much for joining us. we begin with breaking news. a major victory for president trump. the united states supreme court today upheld the president's travel ban restricting entry into the united states from seven countries. iran, north korea, syria, libya, yemen, somalia and venezuela. the ruling was 5-4 with the chief justice john roberts writing for the conservative majority. our justice correspondent jessica schneider is joining s s

from the supreme court with details. jessica, we may have to interrupt you. we're about to get the tape of the president at the white house. once be we get the tape, we'll his reaction to all of this. tell us how the supreme court's decision ruled in the president's favor. >> quite simply, wolf, chief justice john roberts wrote the majority opinion, and he said the president has brought authority to protect national security by enacting this particular travel ban. justice john roberts, he put it quite simply, in fact, saying the proclamation is squarely in the scope of presidential authority. so the court ruling today that both under federal immigration law and the constitution, it was within the president's right to enact this wide-ranging travel ban that affects seven different countries. so while the lower courts and the challengers to this had seized upon the president's statements, calling for a muslim ban when he was the candidate, not yet president, the chief justice in his majority opinion said that it was not the court's

job to denounce these statements, and instead since the proclamation and the travel ban was neutral on its face, the president's authority would stand. of course, this was a 5-4 decision, and joining the majority was that crucial swing vote, justice anthony kennedy. he wrote a concurring opinion. he sent maybe a direct message to the president that words, in fact, matter. then there were the four liberal justices who did dissent. in fact, justices breyer and sotomayor read theirs from the bench this morning, disagreeing with the justice opinion. in fact, justice sotomayor issued a very scathing dissent where this ruling -- >> hold on, jessica, the president was meeting with

republican lawmakers and committees talking about border walls, amo other issues. let's listen in. >> -- the fact that today's supreme court ruling just coming out a tremendous success, a tremendous victory for the american people, and for our constitution. this is a great victory for our constitution. we have to be tough and we have to be safe and we have to be secure. at a minimum, we have to make sure that we vet people coming into the country. we know who is coming in. we know where they're coming from. we just have to know who is coming here. the ruling shows that all of the attacks from the media and the democrat politicians are wrong and they've turned out to be very wrong. and what we're looking for as republicans, i can tell you, is strong borders, no crime. what the democrats are looking at is open borders, which will bring tremendous crime. it will bring ms-13 and lots of

others that we don't want to have in our country. it will bring tremendous crime. so i will always be defending the sovereignty, the safety and the security of the american people. that's why i was put here. we're discussing today the funding of the wall, which we very much need. we started the wall, we're spending a lot of energy and a lot of time and started up in san diego and other places. it's under construction now. we have $1.6 billion, but we're going to ask for an increase in wall spending so we can finish it quicker. it stops the drugs, it stops people that we don't want to have, and it gives us security and safety. and with that, i think we might just take a quick spin around the room, talk to a couple of the folks, and maybe senator, i'll ask you, do you want to say a couple words about why we're here and what we're doing? >> so we're going to continue to

monitor this tape by the president going around the room now, hearing from various republican lawmakers, members of the various congressional appropriations committees. he wants full funding for his border wall with mexico. we'll continue to watch that. but i quickly want to go to our senior white house correspondent jeff zeleny. he's over at the white house. what else are you hearing? the president saying this is a tremendous victory despite supreme court decision. going after democrats once again saying they simply want open borders which will lead to tremendous crime. what else are you hearing over there, jeff? >> reporter: wolf, there is no question the president doing this, in the words of a white house official, as vindication. they are going to use the supreme court ruling as essentially an anthem for their midterm election message on immigration. the president believes the simplest way, surefire way to fire up his base of supporters is through immigration. you hear it broken down there very simply. democrats want open borders.

of course, democrats certainly would push back on that suggestion. but a key question, wolf, comes at the end of this long session, some 39 minutes. he was asked by reporters in the room, i'm told, if he is emboldened by the supreme court ruling. he said, yes, indeed, he is, and that's when he said it's a tremendous victory. what we're seeing here now, the president, of course, not really talking much about the nuance of that ruling, not talking about the fablct the travel ban went through three different versions and a long, winding road to this day. he is claiming victory on this. indeed, it is a big victory for his administration, but he's going to try to par llay that io a midterm election subject. on the appropriations committee, he still has not gotten wall funding, some $25 billion. this is a republican-controlled congress, of course, so that's

what he is asking them for today. all the while, the immigration bills are still stuck in the house. wolf? >> we'll continue to monitor all of that. jeff zeleny at the white house. thank you. let's get some insight into this supreme court ruling. joining us, shan wu and joan. you heard all the arguments inside the white house. the republican appointed justices the majo. that's why there was a 5-4 decision. >> they would say that's not why it was a 5-4 decision, but you have chief justice sotomayor talking down the travel ban. the chief brought up some examples of what the president had said as candidate, and then

afterward, once he was sworn in. and he said, you know, we're not turning our back on those. the chief wanted a signal that the court was not turning its back on those statements, but he was saying those statements don't matter in the larger scheme of things. now, justice sotomayor, who you just referred to, she is an appointee of barack obama's, she said those statements matter. those statements show what the government was really trying to do with a muslim ban. and to turn away from religious liberty and endorsed this executive order really turns away from the nation'sromise of religious liberty. and as i'm sure you've heard all morning, wolf, she likened it to the decision in koramatsu in 1944 when the government took thousands of americans and put them in camps. >> this was the third version of the travel ban, as you well

know, and it considerably changed from what the president originally said. we have the clip of what he originally said as a candidate back in 2015 about a ban on muslims coming the ud states. listen to this. >> we're going to win it. we're going to win it. we're going to apply common sense. we're going to apply intelligence. and we're never quitting and we're never going away, and we're never, ever giving up. the best way to keep foreign terrorists or, as some people would say in certain instances, radical islamic terrorists from attacking our country is to stop them from entering our country in the first place. >> that's what he said as president of the united states. but earlier he had said he wanted a complete travel ban, complete ban on all muslims coming into the united states.

and then also as a candidate, as president, by the way, on the 5th of june, 2017, he said in a tweet, the justice department should have stayed with the original travel ban, not the watered-down politically correct version they submitted to the supreme court. if they would have stayed with the original one, the supreme court wouldn't have said it was constitutional. z >> that's exactly right, wolf. i think it took them three times, three times is the charm for them, to undo that damage he did for that legislative effort. justice sotomayor's reaction is the reaction of most americans, that there is clearly anti-muslim bias here, but the court focused on a couple key points. first, they emphasized neutrality of this version's language. and of course the big difference here is that they expanded the list of countries to include some non-muslim countries. also, i think in 2.0 version of the ban, they removed some language that clearly favored non-muslims over muslims in the

refugee status ach. a lot of changes had been made. >> chief john roberts stressed the worldwide review, stressed the hand of the secretary of the homeland security again to say, it's not what donald trump wanted, it's what the administration wanted and it was vetted. i think you're exactly right. >> what's the broad message the supreme court has now set as far as the president's powers involving immigration? >> well, i think they have really doubled down on his -- that he won these core powers in immigration. i think one of the things that bodes some troubling views in the future is the president feels quite emboldened by this. >> i think that's right. wolf, the supreme court historically have given presidents wide latitude in this area. that's why there was a lot of precedent that challenges were up against. what the challenges were saying was this is actually different. this is different what donald trump has done, and for the supreme court to say, no, it's

actually not different, and to say his executive order was actually more comprehensive than orders that presidents reagan and president carter had done in the past was significant to these five justices in the majority. >> a very significant decision by the united states supreme court. guys, thank you very much. let's get some more reaction. joining us from capitol hill right now, republican congressman francis rudy of florida. what's your reaction, congressman, on the supreme court's ruling of the president's travel ban? >> i think that despite all the clumsiness and difficulties in getting this thing done which your people just described better than i could, the ban of vetting all people, including venezuela, is probably a decent idea. >> if you take a look at the 3.0 version, this third version, as far as venezuela is concerned, the ban only includes, and i'm reading specifically from the law, entry of certain venezuelan

government officials and their immediate family members as non-immigrants on some business and tourist visa suspended. so it's very limited as far as venezuela is concerned. as far as libya and syria, it basically says no one can come into the united states. so there are significant differences in this nuanced third version, right? >> there are, but that will help. venezuela has been sending people back and forth to the united states, stashing money for ag time, and i think the individual sanctions that we put on as well as something like this ban should be helpful as far as venezuela goes. >> one of your democratic colleagues, keith ellison of minnesota, he issued a statement. let me read in part to you what he said. he said, today's decision undermines the core values of religious tolerance on which america was founded. i am deeply disappointed that this ruling gives legitimacy to discrimination and islamophobia. keith el ellison being one of t

two muslims in this administration. >> it has a tred track record, but whe it is right now, the way i look at it, is the way to impede unvetted people particularly from syria from getting into the country. we've heard from a lot of generals, a lot of intelligence officials, that it's a real problem properly vetting people with no birth records, no historical family records, nobody knows who they are, in syria right now. >> yeah, most of the syria ban involves syria, yemen, libya, somalia. to a lesser degree iran, but also some specifics there. let me move to a sensitive issue unfolding today. i want to get your reaction, congressman, to the president's attacks on harley-davidson, the motorcycle manufacturer here in the united states following the company's decision to at least move some production out of the united states because of the new trade tariffs. the president tweeted this, and

i'll read it to you. the president -- he's been venting about his frustrations all morning, insisting harley-davidson is just using these tariffs as an excuse, andn making. republican senator ben sass of nebraska fired back at the president's comments saying this. he said, this will go over like a vespa at sturgis. the problem isn't that harley-davidson is unpatriotic, it's that tariffs are stupid. what do you say? >> i'm not a proponent of tariffs. i think the wt system has worked very well concerning the global system of the economy and it's lifted people out of poverty and it's made our own grow as well. you look at mercedes-benz and bmw and alabama with a mercedes-benz plant. that's no different than harley-davidson putting a plant in germany. >> that's a fair point. there are a lot of foreign companies who built plants here in the united states to sell

their vehicles, their automobiles, to americans. the president says harley-davidson is moving production over to europe. he says that, in his words, is the beginning of the end for them. he had welcomed them early on in his administration. there was an event at the white house on the south lawn with a lot of harley-davidson motorcycles, but now he's really going after them. is that wise? >> i don't know what his motive is, but i know that we're playing with fire to upset the interdependent trade relationships and supply chains that have been driving global growth. >> because he's really going after them. they think these 30% tariffs are going to stop the ability of europeans to buy harley-davidson. they say they have no choice but to build a factory over there so they could avoid that 30% tariff. so from their business standpoint, that makes sense, right? >> it does. and see, it would be a real mistake to upset these relationships that exist all over the world just like you're

talking about and like the two car instances i mentioned. the trade relationships have brought the world together, lowered cost, and a lot more people benefit from lower aluminum and steel prices than a few producers might benefit from higher ones. in fact, we're seeing the same thing with newsprint right now. i've had people from the media in to see me, that there is one mill in the united states that's hiding behind some very high tariffs that are being proposed for canada, and it's just not right. >> what is also true is that all of these tariffs, if there is a full-scale trade war between the u.s., let's say, and canada, mexico, the european union, china, india, a whole bunch of other countries, japan, south korea, in the end it's going to be a hidden tax on american consumers, because all these products, there's going to be a higher cost for all of them, and that's something the u.s. economy is certainly not going to want. congressman rooney, thanks as usual for joining us. >> wolf, thank you again. we'll have much more on the breaking news out of the u.s.

supreme court. plus we're getting word that president trump just took another shot at senator john mccain over his health care vote. we're going to play it for you. stand by for that. also, migrant parents separated from their own children. an emotional mother says her four-year-old son thinks they deserted him. we'll stand by for andrew cuomo. home delivery on sleep number 360 smart beds. ends june 30th. directv gives you more for your thing. if you've been waiting for a sign to quit cable, then here's some signs. it came from the toaster. now you can quit cable. switch to directv and now get a $100 reward card.

more for your quitting cable thing. that's our thing. call 1 800 directv. the nation's largest senior-living referral service. for the past five years, i've spoken with hundreds of families and visited senior-care communities around the country. and i've got to tell you, today's senior-living communities are better than ever. these days, there are amazing amenities, like movie theaters, exercise rooms and swimming pools, public cafes, bars, and bistros, even pet-care services. and nobody understands your options like the advisers at a place for mom. these are local, expert advisers that will partner with you to find the perfect place and determine the right level of care,

whether that's just a helping hand or full-time memory care. best of all, it's a free service. there is never any cost to you. senior living has never been better, and there's never been an easier way to get great advice. call today. place for mom --at advice. you know your family, we know senior living. together we'll make the right choice. you know your family, we know senior living. i saw my leg did not look right. i landed. i was just finishing a ride. i felt this awful pain in my chest. i had a pe blood clot in my lung. i was scared. i had a dvt blood clot. having one really puts you in danger of having another. my doctor and i chose xarelto®. xarelto®. to help keep me protected. xarelto® is a latest-generation blood thinner that's... proven to treat and reduce the risk of dvt or pe blood clots from happening again. in clinical studies, almost 98% of patients on xarelto® did not experience another dvt or pe. xarelto® works differently. warfarin interferes with at least 6 of your body's

natural blood-clotting factors. xarelto® is selective, targeting just one critical factor. don't stop taking xarelto® without talking to your doctor, as this may increase risk of blood clots. while taking, you may bruise more easily, or take longer for bleeding to stop. president trump now answering questions from reporters. >> we got to get going. a lot of bad things are happening, and i think we're doing it incredibly well. we have bad laws. we have the worst immigration laws in the history of the world. it's a joke. people can't believe it. other countries look at us and they say, how is that possible? somebody touches our land, we now take them to a court, to a judge. they want us to choose 5,000 judges. how do you choose 5,000 judges? can you imagine the corruption just from a normal standpoint, just common sense. can you imagine the corruption? go to the barber shop, grab

somebody, make him a judge. everybody is being made a judge. they want 5,000 judges more. it's crazy. in other countries it's called, i'm sorry, you can't come in. you have to leave. this one we have judges. if they step on our land, we have judges. it's insane. so we're going to have to change our whole immigration policy. i was saying last night in south carolina, when i came in, i inherited some things. we inherited north korea. that's going real well. we inherited hard trade deals. that's going really well. nobody knows what's happening behind the scenes, but these countries -- i don't blame them, i blame our people. but they have just been ripping us for years. they want to negotiate so badly, you have no idea. we inherited a lot of different things, but of all of them, immigration makes the least sense. it is a hodge-podge of laws that

have been put together over the years and we have to change it. it's so simple. it's called, i'm sorry, you can't come in. you have to go through a legal process. you don't have to see a judge where the judge is going to take three years before you can come back. in the meantime, you never come back because you're already in the country. you're someplace in the country. and that would be bad, but it's really bad when it's a criminal. and we have plenty of them coming into the country this way. and they use the children. they use these young children for their own benefit. so we have to change the whole immigration picture. we'll be able to do it. we need the border wall, we need the border, we need border security. and we need modern equipment and we'll get it done, i have no doubt. anybody else who would like to say something, anybody? we okay? we'll let these guys go out and have lunch. >> on trade, there are some people who are saying that your tariff threats threatened to plunge the economy into a

recession. harley-davidson announced that it's moving a plant to thailand. you've been very critical about that. >> they announced it early this year. harley-davidson is using that as an excuse, and i don't like that, because i've been very good to harley-davidson. they use it as an excuse. i think people who ride harleys aren't happy with harley-davidson, and i wouldn't be, either. mostly companies are coming back to our country. i was the one that explained to harley about 100% tax in india where they had a tariff of 100%, and i got it down to a much lower number. i think it's 50%, which is far too much. but they were paying 100% tariff. now prime minister modi brought it way down but it's still way too high. i will say this, john. other countries are negotiating. and without tariffs, you could never do that. if they don't want to negotiate, then we'll do the tariffs. just remember, we're the bank. we're the bank that everybody wants to steal from and plunder.

and it can't be that way anymore. we lost $500 billion last year with china. we lost $151 billion with the european union, which puts up trade barriers so that our farmers can't trade. we can't send farm products in, for the most part. it's very hard to send cars in. we have countries where, as an example, india, they charge as much as 100% tariff. we want the tariffs removed. what i would like to do and what i offered at the g-7, you remember, i said, let's drop all tariffs and all barriers. is everybody okay with that? and nobody said yes. i said, wait a minute, folks, you're complaining. no tariffs and no barriers. you're on your own. let's do it. it was like they couldn't leave the room fast enough. >> wouldn't you say it's a risky business here, you could tip the economy into recession? >> we're so high up, we picked

up 40 -- if you look at the kind of numbers we have picked up, it's up almost 40%, the market. and the real market is the overall, and the overall is up much more than that. but we picked up about $8 trillion in value doing what we're doing. now, we've got a little bit of uncertainty because of trade. to me there is no uncertainty, and to other people that happen to be smart, there is no uncertainty. but we can't allow the european union to take out $151 billion out of the united states. we can't allow mexico to have a nafta deal that gives them over $100 billion. and i call it profit. you know, you can divide that up any way you want to do it. i call it profit. we can't allow mexico to take $100 billion. we can't give, john, anywhere from 375 to 100 to 500.

it's 375. some people, depending on your formula, $375 billion. it could be $504 billion. it's a tremendous amount of money being taken out of our economy. we have to straighten it out now. what's happening, we put steel tariffs on. our steel industry is going through the roof. u.s. steel just announced they're expanding or building six new facilities. last night in south carolina, right -- go ahead, georgetown steel. the factory has been closed, the plant has been closed for how long, lindsey? >> about three years. but what's interesting, it's a british company. a steel manufacturing company in britain bought georgetown steel to make steel here. >> right? solar panels, we put tariffs on solar panels, 30%. we had 52 dirchfferent factorie. now they're starting to open again. we had 32.

we had two that were open. everyone else was closed because of what came in from other places, in particular, china. now we have seven that are opening and many more are considering -- and the two that were dying and they were going to close, they're thriving right now. washing machines. they were being dumped all over the country. not good ones, by the way. ones that didn't work really well. and now they're opening up washing machines. we put a 30% tariff on them. so tariffs can be a very positive thing. in the old days when we had tear l -- tariffs, we didn't have income tax. when people wanted to come in, they had to pay a price. when they wanted to come in and raid our treasury, they had to pay a price. we didn't have income tax. you didn't need income tax. we didn't have debt. so we're doing this, i will say, in every instance, in every country you can mention has been extremely nice, even less to the

media probably, but extremely nice. they want to negotiate a deal. and we're open to that. we're open to that. but it's going to be very strong. we are putting on tariffs on certain industries. we can't lose our steel industry. our steel industry was ready to go out of business. it was at the bottom. our aluminum industry was ready to go out of business. now the steel industry is thriving. think of it. united states steel. first time in 35 years they're actually expanding. it's going up. they are building new places. georgetown steel closed for three or four years. they announced yesterday they're opening up their plant. it's been closed for four years, i think they said, in south carolina. no, we're doing the right thing, 100%. and you have them on both sides. some people agree, some people don't agree. the bottom line is countries are coming back now to negotiate, including european union wants to negotiate. because if they don't, we're

going to tax their cars. they send mercedes in, they send bmws in. they pay almost no tax. when we send cars to the european union, they charge us a tremendous tax. five times greater than what we charge them. but more importantly, they don't want our cars. they have a barrier. we don't want your cars. but if you do get it in, you're going to pay a tax. with china, if we send a car to china, they charge us a 25% tax. so we make a car, we send it to china, we want to compete. that's not free trade. that's stupid trade. so we send 25% tax. when they make a car in china and they send it here, we charge them 2.5%. so we get 2.5%, china gets 25%. that's not fair, that's not free, that's just stupid. >> mr. president, where are we at in terms of chinese

investment restrictions? >> it's not just chinese. it's we don't want people coming in -- hey, look, we are a very smart country. we have the most incredible people in silicon valley. we don't want china and other countries. it's not necessarily them in particular because they covered it incorrectly. they had either a leaker that didn't exist or a leaker that didn't know his business very well. they gave it to bloomberg and they gave it to, i believe, the "wall street journal," and it was either a bad leak by somebody that didn't know, but probably they just made up the story and there was no leak. in the long term, i'm not sure my political friends would agree, but i think they're leaks made up by the writers. they don't exist, the leak. but this was a leak that was just off. we want to have our jewels, those are our great jewels. that's like the united states deal from 70 years ago. we have to protect these companies. we can't let people steal that technology. we have the greatest technology

in the world. people copy it and they steal it. we have the great scientists, we have the great brains and we have to protect that. and we're going to protect it. and that's what we were doing. and that can be done through siphius, we have a lot of things that can be done through. we're working that out. the bottom line is we have charged a very substantial tax to some people. they are coming back to negotiate, and frankly, if they don't negotiate, i'm okay with that because i would rather get the tax. >> what about the ban? >> the supreme court ruling was a significant victory for this country and the constitution. the supreme court ruling was a tremendous victory for our country. >> will we go ahead with it, though? >> of course. what do you think, i wouldn't go ahead with it? >> it's also the idea of deporting people without due process as well. >> we have to find a system where you don't need thousands of judges sitting at a border.

other countries look at us and they think we're crazy. they say, what kind of a thing is that? they have countries where they have no problem with people pouring in, and you have countries where people do want to go in. and if you look at the european union, they're meeting right now to toughen up their immigration policies because they've been overrun. they have been overrun. and frankly a lot of those countries are not the same places anymore. and i'm sad to say it, and i said that at the g-7. they are not the same places. but we had a tremendous victory today, and we greatly appreciate it. we needed it as a country. that was a big victory for -- and i can tell you everyone at this table is very happy about it. but that was a big victory for our country, okay? >> do you have a final word, sir? >> well, i think it's pretty much a final word. it's supreme court. we went up and we just waited for the supreme court. that's the final word. that's the supreme court. now, do i want to go in with a different one and maybe a

different variety? i don't think there's any reason. it's a strong victory. >> how much do you want forhe wall funding? >> we're spending 1.6 billion now. there is a plan for another 1.6 billion, but i'd like to ask this room if we can increase it. i think in light of what's happened with the drugs, with the human smuggling, with all of the problems, we have to have the wall. we have to have the wall. you know, in the walls you have ports of entry. you have ports of entry. that's where people come through. and they can come through legally. and bit wy the way, i want peopo come into our country. our country is doing so well, and we have companies moving into our country at numbers like nobody has seen in a long time. we need workers. so i want people to come in. they have to come in through the merit system, though. they have to come in so that they can help our country and these companies. in wisconsin, you have foxcon, one of the great companies of the world. they make the laptop for apple and iphones and a lot of --

they're building a tremendous plant right now in wisconsin. they need workers. i to let people come in. but they have to come in through merit. they have to be people that can love our country and help our country, okay? thank you all very much. >> all right, so the president, you heard him answering some questions from reporters. he's been meeting with republican lawmakers over at the white house on three issues strongly defending the tariffs. he's now opposing against imports coming into the united states from various countries including canada, mexico, the european union, china. also strongly defending his hard line views on immigration, including asking these members for a lot more money to build that border wall with mexico and saying that the u.s. supreme court decision supporting his travel ban, 5-4 decision earlier in the day, is a tremendous victory, he says, for the american people. let's bring in the governor of

new york, andrew cuomo, and get his reaction to all of these issues. governor, thank you so much for joining us. first leet talk about the president's views on immigration and specifically you have, what, about a thousand children who have been separated from their parents that are now being kept in your state, in new york state? how is that working out? >> well, wolf, we have here -- thanks for having me. we have about 1200 unaccompanied alien children, as they refer to it, uac. we don't know the number that has actually been separated. we've been trying to get it from hhs, but i think part of the chaos is they don't know, either. look, when you put it all together, the president has been remarkably consistent. he started this in the campaign, he started a, frankly, tone of divisiveness in this country. immigration is bad, whether it's the muslim travel ban or it's

stopping people at the border and separating them from their families. this was his campae. he tried three times with the muslim travel ban, the supreme court which is his court made a political decision, a bad decision, i think a really shameful decision, but it was a political decision enabled, by the way, by a republican senate that made a political decision by not giving president barack obama an appointee. the president just said in that clip, i support the constitution. what he is doing with families on the border separating children violates the constitution. you can't support the constitution when it serves you and not when it gets in your way. our position is it violates the constitution, it violates due process, violates equal protection and violates the administrative procedures act. new york and 15 other states are

suing the federal government today on that basis. >> talk about that. what is that lawsuit that you are now putting forward? give us some specific details. >> yeah. the president announced the zero tolerance policy april 7th with the department of justice. what that says is we're arresting everyone, we're detaining the parents. by law they can't put children in detention facilities, therefore they had to separate the children. that started this whole chaos. it was the president's political desire to do this, but the policy and the program didn't follow. so now you have the issue of separation of children. hhs has to scramble and send them all over the country. that is viol ativ e of the current law. non-citizens, undocumented

people, still have rights in this country. one of the fundamental due process rights is the care, custody and control of their children. that was violated by the family separation policy. equal protection violation, because it's primarily on the southern border. and third, an administrative procedures act violation laws they just announced it in an arbitrary and capricious way. and today, wolf, you can't even tell what the policy is. the custom and border patrol say that they're suspending arrests of families with children. the department of justice says they're not. the white house says they are, but only temporarily. so it's total chaos, but it is illegal. >> so tell us what you're going to speckifically -- what are yo going to do about it? explain this lawsuit. where is it being filed? >> it's being filed in washington state, in new york

and 15 other states, and we're asking a federal district court to stop the federal government from this policy of separating families. separately, what we're asking the federal government is, to the extent you have children in states, tell the states and let the states help provide services. i mean, put the politics aside, wolf, on a human level. you have children who have been taken from their parents. they're in a country they never heard of. they're sent to a state they can't find on a map. some of these children are in foster care homes. some of them are discharged to family members, extended family members. some of them are put in private foster homes. they have no services, no follow-up care, no help with language, no help getting into schools. let the states help. instead the federal government has put a gag order on the

facilities that are receiving these children. i mean, that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. so we're filing a lawsuit to stop the federal government from separating families, children from families, and second, we're asking the federal government in the interim with the mess you created, at least let the states help rather than having these foster care agencies with a gag order. >> all right. i want you to stand by, governor. there is more i need to discuss with you, including the breaking news on the u.s. supreme court decision ruling that the president's travel ban involving seven countries is constitutional. we'll discuss that and more right after a quick break.

liberty mutual saved us almost $800 when we switched

our auto and home insurance. liberty did what? yeah, they saved us a ton, which gave us a little wiggle room in our budget. i wish our insurance did that. then we could get a real babysitter instead of your brother. hey, welcome back. this guy, right? (laughs) yes. ellen. that's my robe. you could save $782 when liberty stands with you. liberty mutual insurance.

i'm a small business, but i have... big dreams... and big plans. so how do i make the efforts of 8 employees... feel like 50? how can i share new plans virtually? how can i download an e-file? virtual tours? zip-file? really big files? in seconds, not minutes... just like that. like everything... the answer is simple. i'll do what i've always done... dream more, dream faster, and above all... now, i'll dream gig. now more businesses, in more places, can afford to dream gig. comcast, building america's largest gig-speed network. we're following our breaking newsment

news. a major victory for president trump. the supreme court has upheld a 5-4 decision of the travel ban from seven countries. iran, north korea, syria, libya, yemen, somalia and venezuela. the governor of new york, andrew cuomo, still with us. what's your reaction, governor? >> wolf, it's a bad decision on the law. it's a stain on this country's history. this was clearly, in my opinion, a religious bias. it was camouflaged as national security, but it was islamophobia. the court said we should look behind this act and look at the words. if you look at the three travel bans and what the president said, it was clearly a religious bias. second, it was a political decision, and at this time of instability and gridlock where people don't trust institutions, the supreme court, you would have liked to think, was one institution that could be trusted. this was purely political, idealogical, 5-4 decision.

and third, it's more of the same. it is stopping muslims at airports, stopping latinos at borders. it's divisiveness. it is a cancer in the body politic. america is about diversity. when you make diversity an enemy, wolf, you turn one cell in the body politic against another cell in the body politic. and that's why it's a cancer and it has to stop. >> well, what, if anything, are you going to be able to do about this? >> well, we're bringing the lawsuit on the handling at the border. that lawsuit is going to be filed today on the separation of families. we want to stop that because that's not just illegal, that really violates our basic principles of humanity and compassion to be pulling children from their families. >> what about the travel ban? >> we want to stop that policy.

the travel ban we're going to, on an individual basis, offer legal services for people who want to contest it or who might be stuck in this country or get caught in between with family members, so we'll offer individual services. but look, this is a republican president and a republican congress, and if you want to change it, change is going to come in november. >> governor cuomo, thanks as usual for joining us. >> thanks for having me. also new today, trump associate blackwater founder eric prince has provided the special counsel robert mueller access to his phones and computers. we have new information. and israel asked britain's prince william to convey a message to the palestinians. we have details on that as well.

with tripadvisor, finding your perfect hotel at the lowest price... is as easy as dates, deals, done! simply enter your destination and dates... and see all the hotels for your stay! tripadvisor searches over 200 booking sites... to show you the lowest prices... so you can get the best deal on the right hotel for you. dates, deals, done! tripadvisor. visit tripadvisor.com i couldn't catch my breath. it was the last song of the night. it felt like my heart was skipping beats. they said i had afib.

what's afib? i knew that meant i was at a greater risk of stroke. i needed answers. my doctor and i chose xarelto® to help keep me protected from a stroke. once-daily xarelto®, a latest-generation blood thinner significantly lowers the risk of stroke in people with afib not caused by a heart valve problem. warfarin interres with at least 6 of your body's natural blood-clotting factors. xarelto® is selective, targeting just one critical factor. for afib patients well managed on warfarin, there is limited information on how xarelto® compares in reducing the risk of stroke. don't stop taking xarelto® without talking to your doctor, as this may increase your risk of stroke. while taking, you may bruise more easily, or take longer for bleeding to stop. xarelto® can cause serious, and in rare cases, fatal bleeding. it may increase your risk of bleeding if you take certain medicines. get help right away for unexpected bleeding or unusual bruising. do not take xarelto® if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. before starting, tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures and any kidney or liver problems. learn all you can to help protect yourself from a stroke.

talk to your doctor about xarelto®. to help protect yourself from a stroke. no one thought much of itm at all.l people said it just made a mess until exxonmobil scientists put it to the test. they thought someday it could become fuel and power our cars wouldn't that be cool? and that's why exxonmobil scientists think it's not small at all. energy lives here. at this point in your life, you're looking ahead and planning for your financial needs. sure, there's social security in your savings, but will it be enough? so consider a third part of every good financial plan...

your home's equity. if you're a homeowner 62 or older, you can turn that equity into a dependable money source... with a reverse mortgage line of credit from one reverse mortgage. call today for information on how a reverse mortgage line of credit works. it's for people with, or without a current mortgage. it pays off your existing mortgage, if you have one, and any remaining funds can be accessed now or later. no monthly mortgage payments are required which frees up money every month. that could help delay dipping into your savings. plus, you continue to own and live in your home. together with savings and social security, a reverse mortgage could be your way to a more secure financial future. make the smart move now. call one reverse mortgage today.

prince william has unexpectedly landed right in the middle of middle east politics. during the first official visit to israel, by a member of the british royal family the president of israel asked the prince to pass on a message when he meets with the palestinian authority president mahmoud abbas. the message being it's about time for peace. the duke of cambridge is on a five-day visit to israel and the palestinian territories. today he met with the prime minister benjamin netanyahu. let's bring in one of the leaders of the israeli parties. thanks for joining us. >> good to be here. >> any prospect that this peace process could get back off the ground because as you know, jared kushner, the president's special envoy, his son-in-law, he was there, but the palestinians didn't want to meet with him? >> well, they're going to put up a paper and we're going to see what's in the paper. nobody knows. the palestinians, the problem

with the palestinians, they refuse every paper since the year of 2000 when the barack was prime minister and met with clinton at camp david. somebody has to explain to them, this is not a zero sum game. not that they're going to get everything they want otherwise they won't talk to nobody. we need to go into negotiation and we need to talk to them about the prospect of peace. >> does the prime minister, benjamin netanyahu, you're the opposition leader, you would like to be prime minister f there's new elections you might have a chance, does he support what's called a two-state solution? israel living alongside a new state of palestine. >> formerly he does. >> do you believe he does? >> i think everybody in his right mind understand there's a big campaign in israel for people saying we are beyond the point of no return, two no two-state solution, but the majority of israel -- >> what do you -- >> i support the separation under the two-state solution.

i think it's necessary and right thing for our country and children. >> because the middle east peace plan that jared kushner and the president supposedly are going to be putting forward in the coming weeks calls for a two-state solution, israel and palestine, and may even call for east jerusalem to be the capital of the palestinian state. would you support that? >> well, i will never support anything which has to do with the division of jerusalem. we don't know what's in this paper, the ultimate deal as they call it. but we think you know what, it's about time somebody will do something different. because right now, the peace process is totally answering to einstein's famous definition of madness, doing over and over the same thing and expecting different results. since there have been 11 rounds of bilateral talks it's time to put something different on paper. >> that's what the trump administration is about to do, supposedly. >> it's going to be very difficult, netanyahu's

government to say no to president trump after movement of the embassy, after the cancellation of the nuclear agreement with iran, after the way the trump administration has helped this government. >> how much trouble is he in now, he's being investigated by the police and what's going on a few years and his wife charged? >> wolf, you know better than that. i'm not going to comment on this on american television. i wish the prime minister will be off everything. i want to fight him in the poll booth, not in court. >> but you suspect there will be early elections? it's not scheduled for what, next year or something. >> next year. >> you think there could be earlier elections? >> there's a strong possibility for earlier elections. maybe the beginning of next year. >> what is the image of the president of the united states, donald trump, in israel right now? >> well, he's very -- i guess he would be more popular in israel than here because -- >> he's been elected president of the united states here.

>> that's true. i'm saying in israel it's bipartisan, the support. because of, as i was saying, move the embassy, the recognition of jerusalem as the capital of israel, the cancellation of the nuclear agreement, and you know what, because when he was in jerusalem he did everything right, emotionally right, going to the wall, going being emotional about this. i'm a bit worried now that israel won't become a partisan issue. it's important for it to stay a bipartisan issue. keep good contact with the democrats. this is part of the reason i'm in washington. important for israel not to be identified with one side of the american political arena. >> the leader of the yesh atid. thank you for joining us. >> thank you. >> more on the breaking news out of the u.s. supreme court and the president hurlingts at a wild rally as the white house preaches civility. we'll discuss that. the president's new trade target

isn't a foreign country, but an all-american brand. harley davidson. why the president says the motorcycle maker is surrendering. stay with us. ♪ there's nothing more important than your health. so if you're on medicare or will be soon, you may want more than parts a and b here's why. medicare only covers about 80% of your part b medical expenses. the rest is up to you. you might want to consider an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like any medicare supplement insurance plan, these help pick up some of what medicare doesn't pay. and, these plans let you choose any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. you could stay with the doctor or specialist you trust... or go with someone new. you're not stuck in a network... because there aren't any.

so don't wait. call now to request your free decision guide and find the aarp medicare supplement plan that works for you. there's a range to choose from, depending on your needs and your budget. rates are competitive. and they're the only plans of their kind endorsed by aarp. like any of these types of plans, they let you apply whenever you want. there's no enrollment window... no waiting to apply. so call now. remember, medicare supplement plans help cover some of what medicare doesn't pay. you'll be able to choose any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. whether you're on medicare now or turning 65 soon, it's a good time to get your ducks in a row. duck: quack!

call to request your free decision guide now. because the time to think about tomorrow is today. this is cnn breaking news. >> you are watching cnn on as tuesday. i'm brook baldwin. here's the breaking news, the president says today's supreme court decision is, quote, a tremendous victory. the ruling effectively makes the president's controversial travel ban a part of u.s. immigration law. >> so the supreme court ruling was a tremendous victory for this country and for the constitution. the supreme court ruling was a tremendous victory for our country. >> will you go ahead with it, sir? >> of course. what do you think, i wouldn't go ahead with it? >> does it embolden you to the idea of deporting people without due process as well? do you think -- >> we have to find