Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.

Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.

Supreme Court ruling here partially back to Trump on immunity and the High Court immunity ruling likely to further delay Trump trial. So we'll see how this plays. That will have more reporting coming up for but certainly a significant ruling here we've been expecting from this Supreme Court and we got it today. So again another piece of presumably good news for former President Donald Trump. Let's get some more analysis here. We bring on Howard Krent. He's a professor of law at Chicago Kent College of Law. Harold, we just had a few minutes to kind of look at this ruling. It seems like I guess a partial victory for former President Trump, but that may be all that he needs. Any early interpretation from you, Harold.

Supreme Court ruling here partially back to Trump on immunity and the High Court immunity ruling likely to further delay Trump trial. So we'll see how this plays. That will have more reporting coming up for but certainly a significant ruling here we've been expecting from this Supreme Court and we got it today. So again another piece of presumably good news for former President Donald Trump. Let's get some more analysis here. We bring on Howard Krent. He's a professor of law at Chicago Kent College of Law. Harold, we just had a few minutes to kind of look at this ruling. It seems like I guess a partial victory for former President Trump, but that may be all that he needs. Any early interpretation from you, Harold.

Yeah, I think that's right. I mean, the court split the baby in a sense by saying that there was going to be absolute immunity for some kind of presidential acts, those acts that fall within the court of his executive powers, and for other acts it's presumptive immunity, which means that the lower court will have to go through the indictment and the trial and sort of separate out all the acts, so that some of the pro electionary re election acts in terms of how Trump tried to position himself to get reelected, that presumably would fall and not be entitled to absolute immunity. But his discussions with the Attorney General would certainly qualify, and with the vice president would qualify for absolute immunity. So this will be a contextual analysis. But that means delay, It means time, and so there will be very likely no kind of trial until after the election.

Yeah, I think that's right. I mean, the court split the baby in a sense by saying that there was going to be absolute immunity for some kind of presidential acts, those acts that fall within the court of his executive powers, and for other acts it's presumptive immunity, which means that the lower court will have to go through the indictment and the trial and sort of separate out all the acts, so that some of the pro electionary re election acts in terms of how Trump tried to position himself to get reelected, that presumably would fall and not be entitled to absolute immunity. But his discussions with the Attorney General would certainly qualify, and with the vice president would qualify for absolute immunity. So this will be a contextual analysis. But that means delay, It means time, and so there will be very likely no kind of trial until after the election.

When it goes back to the lower court. How does the lower court figure it out? What kind of guidance do they have to have to see, Okay, this qualifies as doesn't qualify? Where do they get that clarity?

When it goes back to the lower court. How does the lower court figure it out? What kind of guidance do they have to have to see, Okay, this qualifies as doesn't qualify? Where do they get that clarity?

It's going to be in the opinion. There is very little precedent on this, but the court's opinion is more detailed than we expected, and so the district court will have to thumb through and sort of get clues and hints. And the court did give a couple of examples in the opinion about what it considered it to be absolutely worthy of absolute immunity and what it didn't. It's at first blush. Obviously, we all need to read it more carefully, but at first blush it is a reasonable decision. The court tackled with it. Obviously, there still is a kind of six ' three split as we've seen in other contexts. But it's not absolute community. It's not a complete insulation of the president from the criminal process. It's not putting the president above the law. It's taking a measured step and trying to say which acts are actually incredibly important for the president not to have a fear of criminal penalty for, and which acts maybe have a presumptive immunity for. But it can be found that if it's a personal act re election, personal vendetta, losing it a poker game, then he can be subject to the criminal sanction.

It's going to be in the opinion. There is very little precedent on this, but the court's opinion is more detailed than we expected, and so the district court will have to thumb through and sort of get clues and hints. And the court did give a couple of examples in the opinion about what it considered it to be absolutely worthy of absolute immunity and what it didn't. It's at first blush. Obviously, we all need to read it more carefully, but at first blush it is a reasonable decision. The court tackled with it. Obviously, there still is a kind of six ' three split as we've seen in other contexts. But it's not absolute community. It's not a complete insulation of the president from the criminal process. It's not putting the president above the law. It's taking a measured step and trying to say which acts are actually incredibly important for the president not to have a fear of criminal penalty for, and which acts maybe have a presumptive immunity for. But it can be found that if it's a personal act re election, personal vendetta, losing it a poker game, then he can be subject to the criminal sanction.

Harold, if you know with the Supreme Court, I guess presumably sending this immunity case back to the lower court give us a sense of timing when how does this play out? When would we get more clarification on this, because I guess that that's really key as it relates to November fifth and then you know into January for swearing in.

Harold, if you know with the Supreme Court, I guess presumably sending this immunity case back to the lower court give us a sense of timing when how does this play out? When would we get more clarification on this, because I guess that that's really key as it relates to November fifth and then you know into January for swearing in.

Yeah, I think that the lower court judge should be able to make a good faith stab at what acts for which President Trump should be absolute immune and which not within you know, six to eight weeks, but that also will be subject to you know, elocatory appeal. And so the question is whether the DC Circuit then would want to stop any kind of trial momentum to consider the ambit of the immunity that the trial court finally decides on. So because of that potentiality, it's extremely rare, as I mentioned, I mean, it's extremely unlikely that this could ever be held for a trial before the election, but the immunity decision should be reached well before that. So the extent that that's relevant, I'm not sure. It is that the lower court should be able to make the first stab at for which acts the president is immune and for which not, and therefore obviously that the criminal trial can proceed on those areas for which the president does not have an absolute immunity, such as possibly goading the protesters on January sixth, or maybe even for the fake elector scheme as well.

Yeah, I think that the lower court judge should be able to make a good faith stab at what acts for which President Trump should be absolute immune and which not within you know, six to eight weeks, but that also will be subject to you know, elocatory appeal. And so the question is whether the DC Circuit then would want to stop any kind of trial momentum to consider the ambit of the immunity that the trial court finally decides on. So because of that potentiality, it's extremely rare, as I mentioned, I mean, it's extremely unlikely that this could ever be held for a trial before the election, but the immunity decision should be reached well before that. So the extent that that's relevant, I'm not sure. It is that the lower court should be able to make the first stab at for which acts the president is immune and for which not, and therefore obviously that the criminal trial can proceed on those areas for which the president does not have an absolute immunity, such as possibly goading the protesters on January sixth, or maybe even for the fake elector scheme as well.

So if we just look forward to after November, can if President Trump wins the White House again, can he give himself immunity from this case? Could President Biden if he gets re elected?

So if we just look forward to after November, can if President Trump wins the White House again, can he give himself immunity from this case? Could President Biden if he gets re elected?

Yeah?

Yeah?

So President Trump would have two options if he's reelected. The first would be to part in himself, which has been discussed and we know that's never happened in history, but the Constitution is silent on it, so he might just try. The second is he could just order his Attorney general to drop the prosecution. And that's probably the more I would advise him to do the latter, because that's more tried and true, and so he does have that power, and he could just say stop the stop the wheels. Now, of course, President Trump would still be criminally possibly liable for the Georgia case, which is pending, and certainly we have no effect on the New York case for which he will be senced in a couple of weeks.

So President Trump would have two options if he's reelected. The first would be to part in himself, which has been discussed and we know that's never happened in history, but the Constitution is silent on it, so he might just try. The second is he could just order his Attorney general to drop the prosecution. And that's probably the more I would advise him to do the latter, because that's more tried and true, and so he does have that power, and he could just say stop the stop the wheels. Now, of course, President Trump would still be criminally possibly liable for the Georgia case, which is pending, and certainly we have no effect on the New York case for which he will be senced in a couple of weeks.

What do we expect to hear from the special prosecutor in this case?

What do we expect to hear from the special prosecutor in this case?

Do you expect to hear.

Do you expect to hear.

Something today or will they take days to kind of peruse and analyze this ruling.

Something today or will they take days to kind of peruse and analyze this ruling.

Oh, you know, that's a pr issue, you know, in terms of what they'll say, I mean, they'll you know, if I were advising Jack Smith, I might say that you know that the Supreme Court has struck the line of we're immunity issue. We believe that most of our indictment is can continue, and we will work with to ensure as efficacious and speedy of a hearing on that issue before the district court. And we hope to continue the case that's been delayed for too long as quickly as possible.

Oh, you know, that's a pr issue, you know, in terms of what they'll say, I mean, they'll you know, if I were advising Jack Smith, I might say that you know that the Supreme Court has struck the line of we're immunity issue. We believe that most of our indictment is can continue, and we will work with to ensure as efficacious and speedy of a hearing on that issue before the district court. And we hope to continue the case that's been delayed for too long as quickly as possible.

Again, to update everybody, the Supreme Court partially backs Trump on immunity, delaying the trial, saying that he has some immunity from criminal charges for trying to reverse the twenty twenty election results. But the trial probably then won't happen before the November election. The Justice has voted six ' three along ideological lines, and would they issue some guidelines as to what constitutes or not constitutes immunity to then push back to the lower courts? Professor, what have we learned then about the Supreme Court? What have we learned through this decision in terms of how it may impact an election?

Again, to update everybody, the Supreme Court partially backs Trump on immunity, delaying the trial, saying that he has some immunity from criminal charges for trying to reverse the twenty twenty election results. But the trial probably then won't happen before the November election. The Justice has voted six ' three along ideological lines, and would they issue some guidelines as to what constitutes or not constitutes immunity to then push back to the lower courts? Professor, what have we learned then about the Supreme Court? What have we learned through this decision in terms of how it may impact an election?

Well, I mean, I think that this pundents don't know whether the New York felony trial is going to affect the election at all. I've seen polls going both ways, and all we know now is that the centerpiece of the case against President Trump, the fake elector scheme and the insurrection on January sixth. That will not go to a jury, and to the extent that that would become critical in the election, who knows, but we're not going to see that played out before a jury before the election.

Well, I mean, I think that this pundents don't know whether the New York felony trial is going to affect the election at all. I've seen polls going both ways, and all we know now is that the centerpiece of the case against President Trump, the fake elector scheme and the insurrection on January sixth. That will not go to a jury, and to the extent that that would become critical in the election, who knows, but we're not going to see that played out before a jury before the election.

Tell us about that lower court that this is now going to go back to professor what do we know about that court and kind of how they interpret the law.

Tell us about that lower court that this is now going to go back to professor what do we know about that court and kind of how they interpret the law.

So this is the court in the DC District Court and Judge Hutkin will be overseeing this case, So this will not be a jury determination. This first cut will be her efforts to apply the guidance that the Supreme Court just handed down to determine what can go forward in terms of the essence of the Special Prosecutor's case against former President Trump, and so this can go relatively efficaciously. The issues have been argued before, but not under this specific framework that the Supreme Court has just delivered. So I would expect there to be by hearing before the judges. And there's no complication as in the Florida Documents case about anything being under seal. The indictment's been handed down, and the parties can parse through the indictment and decide what has to go and what can stay and what the theories are and their complications, and so it's not a matter of simply taking a red pencil and marking things out, because so much is connected. I mean, the president's comments to the vice president in part reflex and official action of the presidency, but in part may reflect his effort to get re elected. So everything may have both the sort of the private and the official combined, and so the parties will be arguing which predominates and why, and so Judge Hutkin then has to take those arguments and make a determination ultimately about which part of the indictment can go forward.

So this is the court in the DC District Court and Judge Hutkin will be overseeing this case, So this will not be a jury determination. This first cut will be her efforts to apply the guidance that the Supreme Court just handed down to determine what can go forward in terms of the essence of the Special Prosecutor's case against former President Trump, and so this can go relatively efficaciously. The issues have been argued before, but not under this specific framework that the Supreme Court has just delivered. So I would expect there to be by hearing before the judges. And there's no complication as in the Florida Documents case about anything being under seal. The indictment's been handed down, and the parties can parse through the indictment and decide what has to go and what can stay and what the theories are and their complications, and so it's not a matter of simply taking a red pencil and marking things out, because so much is connected. I mean, the president's comments to the vice president in part reflex and official action of the presidency, but in part may reflect his effort to get re elected. So everything may have both the sort of the private and the official combined, and so the parties will be arguing which predominates and why, and so Judge Hutkin then has to take those arguments and make a determination ultimately about which part of the indictment can go forward.

In relation to the argument that presidents need total immunity because of stuff in office that they do, or whether that's sort of dealing with the military drone strikes, for example, does this clarify that part of it?

In relation to the argument that presidents need total immunity because of stuff in office that they do, or whether that's sort of dealing with the military drone strikes, for example, does this clarify that part of it?

It does. I mean, I think that the argument that I mean, obviously their listenership should remember that this Pingport earlier held that the president is absolutely immune from any kind of civil liability for drone strikes, from anything else. In the theory that the president cannot be detracted from his or her efforts to be an effective presidency by the fear of a lawsuit afterwards, and so the court has held that for about twenty five years now. And so this is actually in some ways saying that even though that we have civil liability, criminal liability can also be to terms or disincentive from being an aggressive, efficient exercise of presidency. But nonetheless the criminal law is so important that at times it has to exceed or i should say trump of what the president otherwise would do. And again, if the president's acting in a person and the easy answer, right is, if you're upset at a poker game and assault someone that's not there's no reason for the president to be immune from the criminal process. Or if there's an assault in the hallways of the White House, of course there's no reason as well. But there's obviously many, many complicated scenarios that one could draw. The drone strikes, the president would be absolutely immune both criminally answerably for those as long as they're within the outer ambit of his official functions. But again, there's going to be hard line drawing cases to make about what constitutes an official act of the presidency and what is a sort of private or unofficial act. And that's what Judge Chushkin will have to face now in the coming weeks.

It does. I mean, I think that the argument that I mean, obviously their listenership should remember that this Pingport earlier held that the president is absolutely immune from any kind of civil liability for drone strikes, from anything else. In the theory that the president cannot be detracted from his or her efforts to be an effective presidency by the fear of a lawsuit afterwards, and so the court has held that for about twenty five years now. And so this is actually in some ways saying that even though that we have civil liability, criminal liability can also be to terms or disincentive from being an aggressive, efficient exercise of presidency. But nonetheless the criminal law is so important that at times it has to exceed or i should say trump of what the president otherwise would do. And again, if the president's acting in a person and the easy answer, right is, if you're upset at a poker game and assault someone that's not there's no reason for the president to be immune from the criminal process. Or if there's an assault in the hallways of the White House, of course there's no reason as well. But there's obviously many, many complicated scenarios that one could draw. The drone strikes, the president would be absolutely immune both criminally answerably for those as long as they're within the outer ambit of his official functions. But again, there's going to be hard line drawing cases to make about what constitutes an official act of the presidency and what is a sort of private or unofficial act. And that's what Judge Chushkin will have to face now in the coming weeks.

All right, very good, Harold, thank you so much for joining us. How we're Crent, professor of Law at the Chicago Kent College of Law, joining us from Chicago.

All right, very good, Harold, thank you so much for joining us. How we're Crent, professor of Law at the Chicago Kent College of Law, joining us from Chicago.

Viszoom.

Viszoom.

We want to back down to Washington, d C. Joe Matthew joins us once again co host a Balance of Power. Joe, We've had a few minutes to kind of digest what's happening here. What's the feeling within the Beltway over the last several minutes with this ruling.

We want to back down to Washington, d C. Joe Matthew joins us once again co host a Balance of Power. Joe, We've had a few minutes to kind of digest what's happening here. What's the feeling within the Beltway over the last several minutes with this ruling.

Well, I mean to be honest, most people inside the Beltway haven't finished reading this yet. It's one hundred and nineteen pages long, but there are portions of this ruling that jump off the page as the Chief Justice rites as for a presidential's unofficial acts, this is a theme now this hour, right as we get our heads around what they're really ruling on. There is no immunity that's made clear here determining. He goes on to write, whether a former president is entitled to immunity from a particular prosecution requires applying the principles that are laid out here with regard to.

Well, I mean to be honest, most people inside the Beltway haven't finished reading this yet. It's one hundred and nineteen pages long, but there are portions of this ruling that jump off the page as the Chief Justice rites as for a presidential's unofficial acts, this is a theme now this hour, right as we get our heads around what they're really ruling on. There is no immunity that's made clear here determining. He goes on to write, whether a former president is entitled to immunity from a particular prosecution requires applying the principles that are laid out here with regard to.

Conduct at issue.

Conduct at issue.

Remember we said that this may have to go back to the lower court to determine which acts are considered official in which are not. He writes, the first step is to distinguish his official from unofficial actions. No court has thus far considered how to draw that distinction in general or with respect to the conduct alleged in particular. So we have a lot to learn here. And these justices just took a long time. This has been waiting around for months with a very important case in terms of Jack Smith's January sixth case on hold for all of this, and it's going to take a lot longer for the Appeals Court to get its head around this and do the work that the Supreme Court is asking. The idea of a January sixth trial before the election is feeling pretty ridiculous at the moment.

Remember we said that this may have to go back to the lower court to determine which acts are considered official in which are not. He writes, the first step is to distinguish his official from unofficial actions. No court has thus far considered how to draw that distinction in general or with respect to the conduct alleged in particular. So we have a lot to learn here. And these justices just took a long time. This has been waiting around for months with a very important case in terms of Jack Smith's January sixth case on hold for all of this, and it's going to take a lot longer for the Appeals Court to get its head around this and do the work that the Supreme Court is asking. The idea of a January sixth trial before the election is feeling pretty ridiculous at the moment.

All right.

All right.

Also joining us Rick Davis Bloomberg Politics contributor and partner at Stone Court Capital, standing by here with us. Hey, Rick, we see from a truth social President Trump tweeting big win for our constitution and democracy, Proud to be an American. We're already sort of seeing the spin the same question that Paul just asked, what's going to be the spin around this?

Also joining us Rick Davis Bloomberg Politics contributor and partner at Stone Court Capital, standing by here with us. Hey, Rick, we see from a truth social President Trump tweeting big win for our constitution and democracy, Proud to be an American. We're already sort of seeing the spin the same question that Paul just asked, what's going to be the spin around this?

Now?

Now?

Yeah? I think that this could go either way spin wise.

Yeah? I think that this could go either way spin wise.

I mean, obviously Trump's going to lean in and say, look, you know, it's obvious that I've got immunity that they give me this blanket coverage. And there's some implications within the early reading of the ruling that he can get away with that argument.

I mean, obviously Trump's going to lean in and say, look, you know, it's obvious that I've got immunity that they give me this blanket coverage. And there's some implications within the early reading of the ruling that he can get away with that argument.

Pretty well.

Pretty well.

No one's going to tell him no until it goes back to Judge Chuckkin and she Pin, you know, opines on whether or not the case they have before them is the acts of a president or the acts of a private citizen. And so I would say, on the other hand, and I'm surprised that Democrats aren't out more forcefully right now going after this, but they've been very laissez faire on their approach to all things legal when it comes to Donald Trump. But you know, I would certainly be looking at this as a positive from the Democratic point of view and saying, no, absolutely, he's going to be held account and all indications were that these acts that were performed that are under indictment by the Justice Department were unofficial private citizen actions and that they should be held accountable in court of law.

No one's going to tell him no until it goes back to Judge Chuckkin and she Pin, you know, opines on whether or not the case they have before them is the acts of a president or the acts of a private citizen. And so I would say, on the other hand, and I'm surprised that Democrats aren't out more forcefully right now going after this, but they've been very laissez faire on their approach to all things legal when it comes to Donald Trump. But you know, I would certainly be looking at this as a positive from the Democratic point of view and saying, no, absolutely, he's going to be held account and all indications were that these acts that were performed that are under indictment by the Justice Department were unofficial private citizen actions and that they should be held accountable in court of law.

Joe, have we heard from the prosecutor mister Stone about how he may if there was like a split decision like it seems like we're getting today, that he would still pursue aggressively those which are not subject to immunity. Do we know where he stands.

Joe, have we heard from the prosecutor mister Stone about how he may if there was like a split decision like it seems like we're getting today, that he would still pursue aggressively those which are not subject to immunity. Do we know where he stands.

In terms of Jack Smith Jack Smith?

In terms of Jack Smith Jack Smith?

Yes, No, I don't think he's been going there in public, he says very little. You know, that's kind of part of a job here, And he was of course holding forth that all of the four charges would see the light of day. We got the dissent from Justice Soto Mayora. By the way, if you want to talk about the other side of this for a moment, she says, the president is now a king above the law. Quote, let the president violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain. Let him use his official power for evil deeds, she writes, because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be.

Yes, No, I don't think he's been going there in public, he says very little. You know, that's kind of part of a job here, And he was of course holding forth that all of the four charges would see the light of day. We got the dissent from Justice Soto Mayora. By the way, if you want to talk about the other side of this for a moment, she says, the president is now a king above the law. Quote, let the president violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain. Let him use his official power for evil deeds, she writes, because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be.

That is the majority's message today.

That is the majority's message today.

Obviously some real discontent here in another six y three ruling.

Obviously some real discontent here in another six y three ruling.

Yeah, no doubt. Yeah, I'm scrolling through as well. This is quite a lot one hundred and nineteen pages as you were just mentioning, Hey, Rick, what would be the right way for the Republican Party to move on this? I mean, we know how Trump's going to go with this. You mentioned how the Democrats have been hesitant to embrace court rulings. But what's the right way for the GOP to move on this case?

Yeah, no doubt. Yeah, I'm scrolling through as well. This is quite a lot one hundred and nineteen pages as you were just mentioning, Hey, Rick, what would be the right way for the Republican Party to move on this? I mean, we know how Trump's going to go with this. You mentioned how the Democrats have been hesitant to embrace court rulings. But what's the right way for the GOP to move on this case?

Yeah? Look, I think that Trump will do his victory lap today on his social media, and I think try to raise money from it, because he'll say, oh, these Democrats of Washington are using the Justice Department to just try and keep me from being president. This is another example of that, backed up by the Supreme Court ruling. They knew I had immunity and they did it anyway. And then I think what he'll try to convince voters of is that this ends his exposure to the Justice Department prope that Jack Smith is on a wild goose chase, and that ultimately Lee he'll be freative charges.

Yeah? Look, I think that Trump will do his victory lap today on his social media, and I think try to raise money from it, because he'll say, oh, these Democrats of Washington are using the Justice Department to just try and keep me from being president. This is another example of that, backed up by the Supreme Court ruling. They knew I had immunity and they did it anyway. And then I think what he'll try to convince voters of is that this ends his exposure to the Justice Department prope that Jack Smith is on a wild goose chase, and that ultimately Lee he'll be freative charges.

And I think, you know, the reality is in the lesson until this.

And I think, you know, the reality is in the lesson until this.

Case really starts to take fold, the time and the clock is running out on them and Donald Trump. This is the big gamble for Donald Trump if he's elected president, he just makes this case go away. He just calls whoever he appoints his attorney general and say end it. And so it's all a gamble for Donald Trump on whether or not he can win the president see.

Case really starts to take fold, the time and the clock is running out on them and Donald Trump. This is the big gamble for Donald Trump if he's elected president, he just makes this case go away. He just calls whoever he appoints his attorney general and say end it. And so it's all a gamble for Donald Trump on whether or not he can win the president see.

And of course after that debate, he's feeling pretty good about it.

And of course after that debate, he's feeling pretty good about it.

So I think that right now the Republicans are going to try and one do a victor laughin, and two make the case that this is just a matter of legal fare, that the administration is coming after him and that it's unfair.

So I think that right now the Republicans are going to try and one do a victor laughin, and two make the case that this is just a matter of legal fare, that the administration is coming after him and that it's unfair.

So, Joe, is there any expectation that we'll hear from the Biden administration to you the Biden White House today on the Supreme Court ruling?

So, Joe, is there any expectation that we'll hear from the Biden administration to you the Biden White House today on the Supreme Court ruling?

Hard to tell if we'll hear from the White House or the campaign I suspect will the latter. Whether the administration wants to weigh in on this, that might have to wait till a briefing with Karine Jean Pierre. It's always unclear exactly what their posture is going to be on these types of things. But you better believe the campaign war room is cranking into high gear, and it was already run and hot after that debate on Thursday night, and a lot of tough conversations, a lot of tough interviews over the weekend as they try to tamp down this whole conversation about finding a new candidate between now and the Democratic Convention in August, as you make your way to the bottom of the Chief Justices ruling. By the way, he really sums it all up, looking at the balance of power here in Washington, the president's conduct. Congress may not criminalize the president's conduct and carrying out the responsibilities of the executive branch. He refers to this system of separated powers designed by the Framers, demanding an energetic, independent executive.

Hard to tell if we'll hear from the White House or the campaign I suspect will the latter. Whether the administration wants to weigh in on this, that might have to wait till a briefing with Karine Jean Pierre. It's always unclear exactly what their posture is going to be on these types of things. But you better believe the campaign war room is cranking into high gear, and it was already run and hot after that debate on Thursday night, and a lot of tough conversations, a lot of tough interviews over the weekend as they try to tamp down this whole conversation about finding a new candidate between now and the Democratic Convention in August, as you make your way to the bottom of the Chief Justices ruling. By the way, he really sums it all up, looking at the balance of power here in Washington, the president's conduct. Congress may not criminalize the president's conduct and carrying out the responsibilities of the executive branch. He refers to this system of separated powers designed by the Framers, demanding an energetic, independent executive.

This is something that you might hear repeated.

This is something that you might hear repeated.

The President therefore, may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, entitled at a minimum to a presumptive immune from prosecution for all of his official acts. Remember this applies to every president after this as well. The immunity applies equally, he writes to all occupants of the Oval office, regardless of politics, policy, or party. This is something we have to remind ourselves. Is bigger than Donald Trump.

The President therefore, may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, entitled at a minimum to a presumptive immune from prosecution for all of his official acts. Remember this applies to every president after this as well. The immunity applies equally, he writes to all occupants of the Oval office, regardless of politics, policy, or party. This is something we have to remind ourselves. Is bigger than Donald Trump.

Yes, absolutely.

Yes, absolutely.

And then just if you're just joining us the news of the morning, the US Supreme Court ruling that Donald Trump has some immunity from criminal charges for trying to overturn the twenty twenty election results. The case back goes back down to the lower court and the justice is voted six y three along ideological lines. So questionably becomes what actions does Trump to our presidents take that are or are not protected with immunity? Rick, Where does this then leave other cases that are against Trump in relation to immunity. I'm thinking specifically the Georgia case.

And then just if you're just joining us the news of the morning, the US Supreme Court ruling that Donald Trump has some immunity from criminal charges for trying to overturn the twenty twenty election results. The case back goes back down to the lower court and the justice is voted six y three along ideological lines. So questionably becomes what actions does Trump to our presidents take that are or are not protected with immunity? Rick, Where does this then leave other cases that are against Trump in relation to immunity. I'm thinking specifically the Georgia case.

Yeah, the Georgia case is a little bit more complex because it's state law that's being duplicated here, and so whether or not this presidential they extends to the state is going to be a similar question as to Jack Smith. In other words, if some of these acts are seen as private acts, you know, Donald Trump picking up.

Yeah, the Georgia case is a little bit more complex because it's state law that's being duplicated here, and so whether or not this presidential they extends to the state is going to be a similar question as to Jack Smith. In other words, if some of these acts are seen as private acts, you know, Donald Trump picking up.

The phone and trying to fish for votes with the.

The phone and trying to fish for votes with the.

State officials in Georgia, then that prosecution can go forward and it is vulnerable to Donald Trump becoming president and unleashing is just this apartment on killing the case. This case would go forward even if Donald Trump was president.

State officials in Georgia, then that prosecution can go forward and it is vulnerable to Donald Trump becoming president and unleashing is just this apartment on killing the case. This case would go forward even if Donald Trump was president.

So my sense is that if Jack Smith finds.

So my sense is that if Jack Smith finds.

That some of these charges or Judge Chuck and really finds that some of these charges are done in his private capacity, that that will be a signal to the Georgia case that they can go forward with those same kind of charges, knowing that the FEDS have already decided that these are personal functions of Donald Trump and not the functions of the presidency.

That some of these charges or Judge Chuck and really finds that some of these charges are done in his private capacity, that that will be a signal to the Georgia case that they can go forward with those same kind of charges, knowing that the FEDS have already decided that these are personal functions of Donald Trump and not the functions of the presidency.

All Right, guys, thanks a lot, We really appreciate it. It's been quite a more learning. Again. The US Supreme Court ruling and Donald Trump has some immunity from criminal charges for trying to overturn the twenty twenty election results is going back now to the lower court. Rick Davis, Bloomberg political contributor and partner at Stone Court Capital. Also Joe Matthew Cuinger, a balance of power, both of you. Thank you so very much.

All Right, guys, thanks a lot, We really appreciate it. It's been quite a more learning. Again. The US Supreme Court ruling and Donald Trump has some immunity from criminal charges for trying to overturn the twenty twenty election results is going back now to the lower court. Rick Davis, Bloomberg political contributor and partner at Stone Court Capital. Also Joe Matthew Cuinger, a balance of power, both of you. Thank you so very much.

Again, the news of the day is clearly the US Supreme Court rule that Donald Trump has some immunity from criminal charges for trying to reverse the twenty twenty election results, all but ensuring that a trial won't happen before the November election. Let's get some more reporting on that. We go to Zoe Tilman, senior illegal reporter for Bloomberg News. Zoe, what are we learning from this? One hundred and nineteen page ruling.

Again, the news of the day is clearly the US Supreme Court rule that Donald Trump has some immunity from criminal charges for trying to reverse the twenty twenty election results, all but ensuring that a trial won't happen before the November election. Let's get some more reporting on that. We go to Zoe Tilman, senior illegal reporter for Bloomberg News. Zoe, what are we learning from this? One hundred and nineteen page ruling.

You know, I think the big picture of what we're learning is that we're not learning all that much. That the case is going to back down, going back down to a district court judge in Washington to really go through the indictment piece by piece to determine what in there is a core constitutional power of the president and entitled to immunity against secution, and what is unofficial or private conduct that he can still that Donald Trump can still be prosecuted for. You know, the court said, the majority said definitively that his communications with Justice Department officials after the twenty twenty election were definitely off the table. That they made clear. But everything else, you know, is still up for litigation. That includes the conspiracy to put pro Trump electors in battleground states to have them sign false certifications, you know, other efforts to overturn the election. All of that is is still potentially on the table, but it's going to take a while for that to get sorted out.

You know, I think the big picture of what we're learning is that we're not learning all that much. That the case is going to back down, going back down to a district court judge in Washington to really go through the indictment piece by piece to determine what in there is a core constitutional power of the president and entitled to immunity against secution, and what is unofficial or private conduct that he can still that Donald Trump can still be prosecuted for. You know, the court said, the majority said definitively that his communications with Justice Department officials after the twenty twenty election were definitely off the table. That they made clear. But everything else, you know, is still up for litigation. That includes the conspiracy to put pro Trump electors in battleground states to have them sign false certifications, you know, other efforts to overturn the election. All of that is is still potentially on the table, but it's going to take a while for that to get sorted out.

Now, can you go through what we may or may not know about what constitutes official or unofficial actions?

Now, can you go through what we may or may not know about what constitutes official or unofficial actions?

Yeah, you know, what they said is that, you know what the core constitutional functions of a president of the officeholder, and that includes his communications within the executive branch. And that's why, you know, the majority said that talking with the Justice Department, with Justice Department officials about what they could or could not do on his behalf after the election, that that was clearly within the parameters a core constitutional function. But other types of communications, even the Court said with his vice president at the time, Mike Pence, they didn't say definitely that all of those communications would fall within that kind of core constitutional power.

Yeah, you know, what they said is that, you know what the core constitutional functions of a president of the officeholder, and that includes his communications within the executive branch. And that's why, you know, the majority said that talking with the Justice Department, with Justice Department officials about what they could or could not do on his behalf after the election, that that was clearly within the parameters a core constitutional function. But other types of communications, even the Court said with his vice president at the time, Mike Pence, they didn't say definitely that all of those communications would fall within that kind of core constitutional power.

Right now, I also want to bring in Nick Ackerman, former assistant special Watergate prosecutor. Nick, thanks so much for joining us here. I love to get based upon all your years of experience, your takeaway from this Supreme Court ruling this morning.

Right now, I also want to bring in Nick Ackerman, former assistant special Watergate prosecutor. Nick, thanks so much for joining us here. I love to get based upon all your years of experience, your takeaway from this Supreme Court ruling this morning.

Well, to me, I guess I get a little bit angry because there really is nothing here that is an official act, even calls to the Justice Department. I have not read the opinion yet because I have had so many people have been asking me questions about it. But I need to read the opinion. But it seems to me that every thing in there, including making trying to get the Justice Department and putting in an Attorney general who's going to come up with a phony document to send out to the battleground states saying that there was fraud in the election when there was not fraud in the election. Doesn't seem to me to be within the official acts of the President of the United States or part of his constitutional duties. Everything that is in this indictment is alleged is something that is not part of his duties. It certainly isn't part of a president's duties to run for reelection, and moreover, it's not part of his duties to try and fix that election and try and maintain his ability to stay in power through false and fraudulent means, which is what this indictment alleges. What I find troubling about this whole thing is that it is so obvious as to the fact that what is alleged here are not official acts. To begin with that, I don't think it should take Judge Chutkin, who is a district court judge overseeing this, more than a few minutes to determine that these are all official acts. Now, I haven't read the opinion, but is she supposed to have a hearing on this? All of this stuff, most of it we know already because we've heard it before the January sixth Committee, and we know it's not official acts. So what they said is not really of any great moment, because of course, a president who is doing his official acts that are set forth in the Constitution, you can't be accused of a crime for doing that. But that's not what this indictment is about.

Well, to me, I guess I get a little bit angry because there really is nothing here that is an official act, even calls to the Justice Department. I have not read the opinion yet because I have had so many people have been asking me questions about it. But I need to read the opinion. But it seems to me that every thing in there, including making trying to get the Justice Department and putting in an Attorney general who's going to come up with a phony document to send out to the battleground states saying that there was fraud in the election when there was not fraud in the election. Doesn't seem to me to be within the official acts of the President of the United States or part of his constitutional duties. Everything that is in this indictment is alleged is something that is not part of his duties. It certainly isn't part of a president's duties to run for reelection, and moreover, it's not part of his duties to try and fix that election and try and maintain his ability to stay in power through false and fraudulent means, which is what this indictment alleges. What I find troubling about this whole thing is that it is so obvious as to the fact that what is alleged here are not official acts. To begin with that, I don't think it should take Judge Chutkin, who is a district court judge overseeing this, more than a few minutes to determine that these are all official acts. Now, I haven't read the opinion, but is she supposed to have a hearing on this? All of this stuff, most of it we know already because we've heard it before the January sixth Committee, and we know it's not official acts. So what they said is not really of any great moment, because of course, a president who is doing his official acts that are set forth in the Constitution, you can't be accused of a crime for doing that. But that's not what this indictment is about.

But so Nick, it feels like, then what you're saying is the distinction of what is official aka then protected by immunity, and what's unofficial which is not isn't clear at all. And I appreciate that you haven't read the opinion, but the going to a lower court and then them having to decide that based on guidance from the Supreme Court seems very complicated.

But so Nick, it feels like, then what you're saying is the distinction of what is official aka then protected by immunity, and what's unofficial which is not isn't clear at all. And I appreciate that you haven't read the opinion, but the going to a lower court and then them having to decide that based on guidance from the Supreme Court seems very complicated.

I don't think it's that complicated, no, okay.

I don't think it's that complicated, no, okay.

But you have a different opinion than other people's, So from that perspective, it does seem like it's complicated.

But you have a different opinion than other people's, So from that perspective, it does seem like it's complicated.

Well, I don't see how it's all complicated. The fact that you come up with phony electors. What's so complicated about that? The fact that you lie about the election, that you put in false documents before a federal district court judge in Georgia about their being fraud in the election. To me, none of that is very complicated. Of course, that's criminal, and it can be charged as criminal. They're not charging him. First of all, he had no business sticking his nose into anything in the Georgia process. It's not the job of a US president to have anything to do with the presidential election or how that election is run. That is not within the purview of his official acts. And that goes for everything else he did in the other battleground states. So I don't quite understand what the Supreme Court could even conceive of as being an official act that's charged in this indictment.

Well, I don't see how it's all complicated. The fact that you come up with phony electors. What's so complicated about that? The fact that you lie about the election, that you put in false documents before a federal district court judge in Georgia about their being fraud in the election. To me, none of that is very complicated. Of course, that's criminal, and it can be charged as criminal. They're not charging him. First of all, he had no business sticking his nose into anything in the Georgia process. It's not the job of a US president to have anything to do with the presidential election or how that election is run. That is not within the purview of his official acts. And that goes for everything else he did in the other battleground states. So I don't quite understand what the Supreme Court could even conceive of as being an official act that's charged in this indictment.

Zoe, what do we expect to hear from the Biden White House, the Biden campaign as it relates to this ruling.

Zoe, what do we expect to hear from the Biden White House, the Biden campaign as it relates to this ruling.

You know, so far, the White House has been quite careful when talking about this case. It's depending criminal matter. Everything is alleged until a jury determines, you know, whether he is guilty or not. And I think the President and the White House have been quite careful not to be seen as intruding on the process with all until it's you know, fully adjudicated. So, you know, I would expect the same kind of caution and care in anything they might say about this decision and the next steps, because the court has really left so much unresolved. You know, it's the Justice Department's policy generally to not comment publicly while a case is pending, So I don't think we're going to expect any kind of robust commentary, at least from official channels on this for now.

You know, so far, the White House has been quite careful when talking about this case. It's depending criminal matter. Everything is alleged until a jury determines, you know, whether he is guilty or not. And I think the President and the White House have been quite careful not to be seen as intruding on the process with all until it's you know, fully adjudicated. So, you know, I would expect the same kind of caution and care in anything they might say about this decision and the next steps, because the court has really left so much unresolved. You know, it's the Justice Department's policy generally to not comment publicly while a case is pending, So I don't think we're going to expect any kind of robust commentary, at least from official channels on this for now.

Nick, do you feel like that if you are bringing this sort of case A fair question, but you're a special prosecutor for Watergate, right, would you consider how it was delivered to the courts this particular case. Was it framed in the correct way to get the right message across mentioning Georgia. I mean, the case had nothing to do with Georgia, So everything that we're talking about maybe true, but with Georgia that wasn't. The case was specifically with twenty twenty and specifically in a January sixth issue. So do you think the case and not dealing with insurrection, for example, was a problem.

Nick, do you feel like that if you are bringing this sort of case A fair question, but you're a special prosecutor for Watergate, right, would you consider how it was delivered to the courts this particular case. Was it framed in the correct way to get the right message across mentioning Georgia. I mean, the case had nothing to do with Georgia, So everything that we're talking about maybe true, but with Georgia that wasn't. The case was specifically with twenty twenty and specifically in a January sixth issue. So do you think the case and not dealing with insurrection, for example, was a problem.

No, it's not just The indictment is not just a January sixth issue. It's also an issue that relates to the entire effort to stop the peaceful transfer of power. It goes back to Georgia, it goes back to what he did in the battleground states. This is not just relating to January sixth and the January sixth matter. All relates to trying to underline the peaceful transfer power and January sixth and trying to get the vice president to basically take what our fraudulent electors and put those in place or send the vote back to the battleground states. I mean, this is all outside of what a president is supposed to do and outside of his absolute normal acts.

No, it's not just The indictment is not just a January sixth issue. It's also an issue that relates to the entire effort to stop the peaceful transfer of power. It goes back to Georgia, it goes back to what he did in the battleground states. This is not just relating to January sixth and the January sixth matter. All relates to trying to underline the peaceful transfer power and January sixth and trying to get the vice president to basically take what our fraudulent electors and put those in place or send the vote back to the battleground states. I mean, this is all outside of what a president is supposed to do and outside of his absolute normal acts.

Zoe, what's the expectation here? Is there enough left outside of the immunity for the prosecutors to continue this case?

Zoe, what's the expectation here? Is there enough left outside of the immunity for the prosecutors to continue this case?

That's what they will certainly argue. You know, the court certainly left enough in the indictment up for debate before the district court.

That's what they will certainly argue. You know, the court certainly left enough in the indictment up for debate before the district court.

Dutch.

Dutch.

You know, I think it's worth noting that whatever Judge Chuckkin in Washington decides after this next round of litigation could then potentially be appealed again and go back up to the appeals court process even reach the Supreme Court again before there's any kind of trial schedule. So that's why, you know, when we talk about this being a sort of tactical win for Donald Trump in the sense that it's very unlikely anything gets to trial before the election. You know, but the court sort of said, you know, even things like conversations between the president and the vice president might not be covered by immunity in the end, depending on what they were discussing, where it was really about the functions of the executive manchi as opposed to you know, the vice presidental rational process where president doesn't have any direct power to decide what should and should not happen. And then you know, the state elector's component of the indictment is you know, up for debate and justice Barrett and the concurring opinion said that she thought she didn't see how immunity would apply there in terms of any role that the president plays in the state election process. So there is just still a lot in the indictment that remains unresolved, even as you know, it is a positive opinion for Trump in terms of time.

You know, I think it's worth noting that whatever Judge Chuckkin in Washington decides after this next round of litigation could then potentially be appealed again and go back up to the appeals court process even reach the Supreme Court again before there's any kind of trial schedule. So that's why, you know, when we talk about this being a sort of tactical win for Donald Trump in the sense that it's very unlikely anything gets to trial before the election. You know, but the court sort of said, you know, even things like conversations between the president and the vice president might not be covered by immunity in the end, depending on what they were discussing, where it was really about the functions of the executive manchi as opposed to you know, the vice presidental rational process where president doesn't have any direct power to decide what should and should not happen. And then you know, the state elector's component of the indictment is you know, up for debate and justice Barrett and the concurring opinion said that she thought she didn't see how immunity would apply there in terms of any role that the president plays in the state election process. So there is just still a lot in the indictment that remains unresolved, even as you know, it is a positive opinion for Trump in terms of time.

So if you're just joining us, this is what's happening. The US Supreme Court rule that Donald Trump has some immunity from criminal charges for trying to reverse the twenty twenty election results. The vote was six ' three. Now goes back to the lower court, and we're talking to Nick Ackerman, former assistant special Watergate prosecutor, and Zoe Tilman, senior legal reporter, are still with us. Nick, going back to the makeup of the court, is there a case that some justices could have recused themselves or should have?

So if you're just joining us, this is what's happening. The US Supreme Court rule that Donald Trump has some immunity from criminal charges for trying to reverse the twenty twenty election results. The vote was six ' three. Now goes back to the lower court, and we're talking to Nick Ackerman, former assistant special Watergate prosecutor, and Zoe Tilman, senior legal reporter, are still with us. Nick, going back to the makeup of the court, is there a case that some justices could have recused themselves or should have?

Of course, I mean there's two justices that obviously should have recused themselves, Justice Thomas and Justice Alito. Justice Alito made his opinion known about the January sixth insurrection by flying the flag upside down immediately after that insurrection, adjoining the insurrectionists, and Justice Thomas's wife was intricately involved in trying to push forward this situation so that Trump could stay in power. So yeah, those two justices absolutely should have recused themselves. All I can say is this feels so much different than the Supreme Court in nineteen seventy four, which was also comprised of justices that were appointed by Republican presidents, who wound up in an eight to zero decision ordering Nixon to turn over his tapes. There was never any question about delaying the matter the Supreme Court. There, Unlike the Supreme Court bypassed the appellate court, the DC Circuit, and let this go directly the Supreme Court. It was done in a matter of months. Everything was expedited here. This was dragged out as much as possible. Even though the Special counsul asked for immediate review to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court sent it back to the DC Circuit to decide, then didn't really take this in an expedited manner, and then issued the opinion on the last day of their term. So to me, it smells a lot like what they were doing was purposely trying to delay matters for Donald Trump so he wouldn't have to have his day of reckoning in court prior to the election.

Of course, I mean there's two justices that obviously should have recused themselves, Justice Thomas and Justice Alito. Justice Alito made his opinion known about the January sixth insurrection by flying the flag upside down immediately after that insurrection, adjoining the insurrectionists, and Justice Thomas's wife was intricately involved in trying to push forward this situation so that Trump could stay in power. So yeah, those two justices absolutely should have recused themselves. All I can say is this feels so much different than the Supreme Court in nineteen seventy four, which was also comprised of justices that were appointed by Republican presidents, who wound up in an eight to zero decision ordering Nixon to turn over his tapes. There was never any question about delaying the matter the Supreme Court. There, Unlike the Supreme Court bypassed the appellate court, the DC Circuit, and let this go directly the Supreme Court. It was done in a matter of months. Everything was expedited here. This was dragged out as much as possible. Even though the Special counsul asked for immediate review to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court sent it back to the DC Circuit to decide, then didn't really take this in an expedited manner, and then issued the opinion on the last day of their term. So to me, it smells a lot like what they were doing was purposely trying to delay matters for Donald Trump so he wouldn't have to have his day of reckoning in court prior to the election.

All right, Nick, thank you so much for joining us. Nick Ackman, former assistant Special Watergate prosecutor prosecutor, and Zoe tell Me legal reporter for Bloomberg News based in Washington and DC.

All right, Nick, thank you so much for joining us. Nick Ackman, former assistant Special Watergate prosecutor prosecutor, and Zoe tell Me legal reporter for Bloomberg News based in Washington and DC.

The latest is that the Supreme Court has given Trump partial immunity when it comes to trying to overturn the twenty twenty election. Want to get right to the Supreme Court here with Greg Store, Supreme Court reporter on this ruling. All right, Greg, what is the feeling. What's the reaction where you are walk us through, walk us through the latest.

The latest is that the Supreme Court has given Trump partial immunity when it comes to trying to overturn the twenty twenty election. Want to get right to the Supreme Court here with Greg Store, Supreme Court reporter on this ruling. All right, Greg, what is the feeling. What's the reaction where you are walk us through, walk us through the latest.

Well, even though Donald Trump didn't get everything he saw in this ruling, he certainly got enough. This is a very big ruling in his favor because it means that there's really no practical way a trial can happen before the election. What exactly is going to happen when the case goes back to the lower court. The extent to which this case is still viable in theory, we don't know that yet. But what's clear is that the idea that he could be tried and convicted before the election is a non starter at this point.

Well, even though Donald Trump didn't get everything he saw in this ruling, he certainly got enough. This is a very big ruling in his favor because it means that there's really no practical way a trial can happen before the election. What exactly is going to happen when the case goes back to the lower court. The extent to which this case is still viable in theory, we don't know that yet. But what's clear is that the idea that he could be tried and convicted before the election is a non starter at this point.

Gregor Prior guest Nick Ackerman, former assistant special Watergate prosecutor, really kind of calling out the court I think here for some politalization of their duties visa VI kind of what we saw from the Supreme Court back and the Nixon investigation. What's your feeling about how this court ruled here in this case. What are some of your sources telling you.

Gregor Prior guest Nick Ackerman, former assistant special Watergate prosecutor, really kind of calling out the court I think here for some politalization of their duties visa VI kind of what we saw from the Supreme Court back and the Nixon investigation. What's your feeling about how this court ruled here in this case. What are some of your sources telling you.

Well, I'll leave the kind of the rightness or wrongness of the substance of this opinion to other folks, But in terms of the timing of this there was certainly there were certainly a couple has the Court could have taken to get this ruling out sooner. They could have The Special counsel Jack Smith, asked the Court last December to take up the case on an ultra expedited basis. The Court turned him down. They could have taken it. Then they could have issued a quick ruling and then maybe there would have been a trial before the election. They made a choice not to. They wanted to delve deeply into these constitutional issues. They wanted to let a federal appeals court decide the case first. And the practical impact is that it ends up being a huge victory for Donald trumpet even though they didn't go quite as far as he actually asked them to go. He asked them to throw out the indictment. They didn't go there.

Well, I'll leave the kind of the rightness or wrongness of the substance of this opinion to other folks, But in terms of the timing of this there was certainly there were certainly a couple has the Court could have taken to get this ruling out sooner. They could have The Special counsel Jack Smith, asked the Court last December to take up the case on an ultra expedited basis. The Court turned him down. They could have taken it. Then they could have issued a quick ruling and then maybe there would have been a trial before the election. They made a choice not to. They wanted to delve deeply into these constitutional issues. They wanted to let a federal appeals court decide the case first. And the practical impact is that it ends up being a huge victory for Donald trumpet even though they didn't go quite as far as he actually asked them to go. He asked them to throw out the indictment. They didn't go there.

So, being a Supreme Court reporter and have been for quite a long time and kind of knowing how politicized in some ways it has become at least the rhetoric around that. What's been your takeaway over the last week and a half of all the decisions that we've learned, Like, where does that set us up?

So, being a Supreme Court reporter and have been for quite a long time and kind of knowing how politicized in some ways it has become at least the rhetoric around that. What's been your takeaway over the last week and a half of all the decisions that we've learned, Like, where does that set us up?

Now?

Now?

Yeah?

Yeah?

I mean it is very noteworthy that this ruling elects. Several others that we got recently were six three ideologically divided, the six Republican appointees, including the three Trump appointees in the majority and the three Democratic appointees in dessent. This is a conservative supermajority. They didn't rule in every single case this term on the conservative side, but they did in an awful lot of them. And you know, we're it's really going to have sweeping impacts on the law in a lot of areas. You know, rulings that we got, including one today that's going to probably not get a whole lot of attention having to do with administrative law and a big ruling last week, are really going to curtail the administrative state and regulation. And of course this ruling could have tremendous political impacts.

I mean it is very noteworthy that this ruling elects. Several others that we got recently were six three ideologically divided, the six Republican appointees, including the three Trump appointees in the majority and the three Democratic appointees in dessent. This is a conservative supermajority. They didn't rule in every single case this term on the conservative side, but they did in an awful lot of them. And you know, we're it's really going to have sweeping impacts on the law in a lot of areas. You know, rulings that we got, including one today that's going to probably not get a whole lot of attention having to do with administrative law and a big ruling last week, are really going to curtail the administrative state and regulation. And of course this ruling could have tremendous political impacts.

So, as you mentioned, Jack, we've had have had a number of six three rulings along political lines. How normal, abnormal unusual?

So, as you mentioned, Jack, we've had have had a number of six three rulings along political lines. How normal, abnormal unusual?

Is that?

Is that?

Certainly in recent years it's not that unusual. We've come to be used to it. There was a time back before twenty ten where you have a lot of you know, justices crossing over so to speak, Republican of re appointees who voted in a liberal direction in a lot of cases, and occasionally Democratic appointees who voted in a conservative way. We see an awful lot less of that. Now. The ideological divides on this court are also the partisan divides on this court, and that, coupled with the divisive, polarizing times that were in politically, mean that we end up with a lot of these rulings where the Republican appointees are are doing things that benefit the Republican party and their interests.

Certainly in recent years it's not that unusual. We've come to be used to it. There was a time back before twenty ten where you have a lot of you know, justices crossing over so to speak, Republican of re appointees who voted in a liberal direction in a lot of cases, and occasionally Democratic appointees who voted in a conservative way. We see an awful lot less of that. Now. The ideological divides on this court are also the partisan divides on this court, and that, coupled with the divisive, polarizing times that were in politically, mean that we end up with a lot of these rulings where the Republican appointees are are doing things that benefit the Republican party and their interests.

To that point that you made about regulation, can we just kiss a lot of regulation good bye? I mean, it just seems like if I add up all the cases on that, I mean, is that a safe takeaway for me?

To that point that you made about regulation, can we just kiss a lot of regulation good bye? I mean, it just seems like if I add up all the cases on that, I mean, is that a safe takeaway for me?

I'm not sure I would guess it goodbye in the sense that all this is going to have to be fought over in the courts. It's going to be case by case. They are going to be just a slew of lawsuits challenging regulations, both existing ones and ones going forward. So I'm not sure it's like cut and dried. I can point to that regulation is not going to survive, but it's pretty clear that there are a lot of regulations that won't survive, and even more of them that are going to be under fire and kind of under question and raising uncertainty.

I'm not sure I would guess it goodbye in the sense that all this is going to have to be fought over in the courts. It's going to be case by case. They are going to be just a slew of lawsuits challenging regulations, both existing ones and ones going forward. So I'm not sure it's like cut and dried. I can point to that regulation is not going to survive, but it's pretty clear that there are a lot of regulations that won't survive, and even more of them that are going to be under fire and kind of under question and raising uncertainty.

Okay, So then to that point, let's pretend that Congress now issues super clear regulation or laws and everything is super cut and dry, which I don't know if that's actually possible. How many of the laws that we're going to see past we're going to eventually just wind up in courts like how do we govern? In that case?

Okay, So then to that point, let's pretend that Congress now issues super clear regulation or laws and everything is super cut and dry, which I don't know if that's actually possible. How many of the laws that we're going to see past we're going to eventually just wind up in courts like how do we govern? In that case?

Well, a lot of them will. With regard to these Supreme Court rulings on the administrative state, most of those, it tend to be or the regual focus of those are where Congress hasn't been clear, And if Congress had been clear in a particular law, then we wouldn't have the case that we're having. We're kind of dealing with what happens when regulators sort of try to fill in the gaps or do something without explicit authorization from Congress. Now it's possible there's a there's a you know, a case that the Court could say tomorrow that it's going to take up that would actually restrict Congress's power to delegate things to administrative administrative agencies. But right now, a lot of these things. If you think they are problems, there are, at least in theory, problems that Congress could fix. The issue is more that you know Congress doesn't have the political will or the functionality at this point to enact a whole lot of clear legislation.

Well, a lot of them will. With regard to these Supreme Court rulings on the administrative state, most of those, it tend to be or the regual focus of those are where Congress hasn't been clear, And if Congress had been clear in a particular law, then we wouldn't have the case that we're having. We're kind of dealing with what happens when regulators sort of try to fill in the gaps or do something without explicit authorization from Congress. Now it's possible there's a there's a you know, a case that the Court could say tomorrow that it's going to take up that would actually restrict Congress's power to delegate things to administrative administrative agencies. But right now, a lot of these things. If you think they are problems, there are, at least in theory, problems that Congress could fix. The issue is more that you know Congress doesn't have the political will or the functionality at this point to enact a whole lot of clear legislation.

The mechanism how this is going to move here for President Trump in this community case, where's it going to go, when's it going to go, and timing, So.

The mechanism how this is going to move here for President Trump in this community case, where's it going to go, when's it going to go, and timing, So.

It will get kicked back to the federal district judge who's overseeing the trial, Tanya chuck Kin. That won't formally happen for a month or so. She has said that even before this ruling happened, that she's indicated she's allowed a couple of months, two or three months for each side to prepare for trial, and the trial could last two or three months. And now on top of all that, she's going to have to dive into these allegations and decide, looking at the testa Supreme Court laid out is is this official or is this private? And therefore can stay in the indictment, And those decisions that she's making very likely will be appealable before there's even a trial. So we're talking about a much longer timeline than it had previously looked like we were going to have.

It will get kicked back to the federal district judge who's overseeing the trial, Tanya chuck Kin. That won't formally happen for a month or so. She has said that even before this ruling happened, that she's indicated she's allowed a couple of months, two or three months for each side to prepare for trial, and the trial could last two or three months. And now on top of all that, she's going to have to dive into these allegations and decide, looking at the testa Supreme Court laid out is is this official or is this private? And therefore can stay in the indictment, And those decisions that she's making very likely will be appealable before there's even a trial. So we're talking about a much longer timeline than it had previously looked like we were going to have.

All right, Greg, we appreciate it. I know it's been incredibly busy a couple of weeks for you, especially today, Greg Store, Bloomberg Supreme Court reporter, by joining us in all the Supreme Court rulings,

All right, Greg, we appreciate it. I know it's been incredibly busy a couple of weeks for you, especially today, Greg Store, Bloomberg Supreme Court reporter, by joining us in all the Supreme Court rulings,