TRUMP'S SENTENCING OVER HUSH MONEY PAYMENTS IS ON HOLD FOR ANOTHER 2 MONTHS AFTER THE SUPREME COURT RULES, PRESIDENTS HAVE BROAD IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION.

THAT'S 6 TO 3 RULING DRAMATICALLY EXPANDS THE POWER OF THE PRESIDENT WITH THE DECISION THAT THEY CANNOT BE CHARGED FOR OFFICIAL ACTS.

THE DECISION WAS SPARKED BY ANOTHER OF TRUMP'S INDICTMENTS OVER CHARGES.

HE TRIED TO SUBVERT THE 2020 ELECTION.

TRUMP IMMEDIATELY CELEBRATED THE RULING AS A BIG WIN FOR THE COUNTRY.

BUT MANY DEMOCRATIC LEADERS AND DISSENTING JUSTICES ON THE COURT CALLED THE DECISION A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT THAT COULD CREATE DICTATOR LIKE POWERS.

JOINING US TO DISCUSS THIS ARE CAROLYN SHAPIRO, PROFESSOR OF LAW AND CO-DIRECTOR OF THE INSTITUTE ON THE SUPREME COURT AT ILLINOIS TAX.

CHICAGO CAN'T COLLEGE OF LAW.

SHE ALSO CLERKED FOR JUSTICE STEPHEN BREYER AND JOINING US BY ZOOM IS ASHLEY KELLER, A SENIOR PARTNER AT KELLER POSTMAN.

HE ALSO CLERKED FOR JUSTICE ANTHONY KENNEDY.

THANK YOU BOTH VERY MUCH FOR BEING WITH US.

CAROLYN SHAPIRO, I'D LIKE TO START WITH YOU, PLEASE.

FORMER PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS BEEN FACING MULTIPLE LEGAL CHALLENGES.

REMIND US THAT THE BACKGROUND OF THE CASE THAT THE SUPREME COURT JUST RULED THE BACKGROUND IS JANUARY 6TH AND IT EVENTS LEADING UP TO IT IN THE INDICTMENT.

CHARGES HIM IN VARIOUS WAYS CONSPIRING TO ARE ATTEMPTING TO ESSENTIALLY OVER THROW THE ELECTION, THE TECHNIQUE, THE LEGAL CHARGES ARE.

SO THE MORE TECHNICAL THAN THAT.

BUT THAT'S WHAT THE CASE IS ABOUT.

AND THAT'S WHAT THE SUPREME COURT TODAY SAID, AT LEAST AS TO SOME OF THE ACTIONS THAT HE TOOK.

HAS ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY AS TO SOME OF THE ACTIONS THAT HE TOOK.

HE HAD.

THEY ARE THAT ARE ALLEGED HIS PRESUMPTIVE IMMUNITY, WHICH THE PROSECUTOR MAY BE ABLE TO OVERCOME AND THAT THERE MAY BE SOME UNOFFICIAL ACTS FOR WHICH IS UNITY, BUT THEY DID NOT SAY WHAT ANY OF THE ACTS HE IS ALLEGED TO OR THAT WE ALL WITNESSED DO.

WE'RE AN OFFICIAL ACT.

WE'VE GOT A BIT OF THE DECISION THAT SAYS THE PRESIDENT ENJOYS NO IMMUNITY FOR HIS UNOFFICIAL ACT AND NOT EVERYTHING THE PRESIDENT DOES IS OFFICIAL.

THE PRESIDENT IS NOT ABOVE THE LAW BECAUSE ON TO SAY CONGRESS MAY NOT CRIMINALIZE THE PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT IN CARRYING OUT THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.

WHAT WAS YOUR REACTION TO THAT?

MY REACTION IS THIS DECISION?

EXTRAORDINARY, REALLY BROAD THERE MAY WELL BE THINGS FOR WHICH THE PRESIDENT SHOULD HAVE IMMUNITY AND THERE ARE OTHER THEIR VARIETY OF WAYS TO GET THERE.

BUT THIS OPINION SAYS THAT NOT ONLY DOES THE PRESIDENT HAVE ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY FROM CERTAIN ACTS?

IT JUST FINDS THOSE THAT RANGE OF ACTS EXTREMELY BROADLY.

IT SAYS AND AND SO THERE'S NO POSSIBILITY OF ALLEGATIONS THERE.

SO, FOR EXAMPLE, HIS CONVERSATIONS WITH THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT THE COURT SAYS PART OF HIS CORE CONSTITUTIONAL FUNCTIONS AND THEREFORE HE HAS ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY.

2 OTHER THINGS.

THE COURT SAID THAT WE'RE REALLY PROBLEMATIC.

ONE IS THAT THE MOTIVE THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS OR IS ALLEGED TO HAVE IS IRRELEVANT WHEN DETERMINING WHETHER AN ACT IS OFFICIAL OR UNOFFICIAL.

SO THE FACT THAT HE HAD IT, CORRUPT MOTIVE TO TRY TO OVERTURN THE ELECTION IS IRRELEVANT TO THE IMMUNITY DETERMINATION.

AND FINALLY, THEY SAID THAT THE ACTS FOR WHICH CANNOT BE ENTERED EVEN AS EVIDENCE IN ANY TRIAL AGAINST HIM.

ASHLEY TAYLOR, LIKE TO BRING YOU AND PLEASE, WHAT'S YOUR REACTION TO THE SUPREME COURT DECISION?

YEAH, I THINK SO.

I'M A LITTLE BIT OF A DIFFERENT LET ME GIVE YOUR LISTENERS A HYPOTHETICAL.

IF CONGRESS PASSED A LAW SAYING THAT W T TW COULD NOT POST THIS BROADCAST BECAUSE CONGRESS DISAGREES WITH YOUR POLITICAL PATENTS.

AND IF THIS BROADCAST AND GO FORWARD, ANYBODY WHO WAS INVOLVED IN IT WOULD BE PUNISHED BY 10 YEARS IN PRISON.

YOU WOULD BE IMMUNE FROM PROSECUTION IF YOU NEVERTHELESS WENT FORWARD WITH THIS BROADCAST BECAUSE THE FIRST AMENDMENT WOULD RENDER THAT WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND THE SAME PRINCIPLE IS WHAT THE SUPREME COURT IS PICKING UP HERE UNDER ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONSTITUTION.

IF CONGRESS PASSES A LAW SAYING THE PRESIDENT SHOULD GO TO JAIL FOR 10 YEARS IF HE VETOES ANY LEGISLATION THAT CONGRESS PASSES.

OF COURSE THAT WOULD BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES HAS A RECORD EXECUTIVE PREROGATIVE, VETO LEGISLATION.

LET'S TALK ABOUT WHAT PROFESSOR SHAPIRO JUST DISCUSSED.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IS VESTED WITH ALL OF THE EXECUTIVE POWER.

OF COURSE, HE HAS A POOR CONSTITUTIONAL PREROGATIVE TO CONSULT WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ABOUT WHETHER TO PROSECUTE ELECTION FRAUD.

AND IT DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER YOU THINK HE'S RIGHT ABOUT ELECTION FRAUD, JUST LIKE IT DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER YOU THINK HE SHOULD VETO THE LEGISLATION ARE NOT.

SO THE PRINCIPAL IN PLAY HERE IS THAT THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES WHICH DEFINES THE SCOPE OF THE PRESIDENT'S EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY IS SUPREME LAW OVER ANY CRIMINAL STATUTE.

OF COURSE, THE PRESIDENT'S NOT A KING.

WE DON'T HAVE A MONARCHY TODAY WHEN WE YESTERDAY THOUGHT WE HAD A CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, THE SUPREME COURT DRAWS TOP LINE QUITE CLEARLY.

BUT PROFESSOR SHAPIRO IS OBVIOUSLY CORRECT.

IT DOESN'T GO THROUGH AND DELINEATE ALL OF THE THINGS THAT ARE OFFICIAL CONDUCT VERSUS AN OFFICIAL CONDUCT.

THAT'S BECAUSE THE SUPREME COURT IS COURT OF REVIEW.

NOT FIRST VIEW IT.

SEND IT BACK TO THE OBAMA APPOINTED DISTRICT COURT JUDGE TO MAKE THOSE DETERMINATIONS IN THE FIRST INSTANCE.

AND THAT'S ENTIRELY APPROPRIATE FOR THE SUPREME COURT TO DO.

SO, ASHLEIGH, DO YOU SEE THIS AS AN EXPANSION OF PRESIDENTIAL POWER OR IS THIS THE COURT SIMPLY DELINEATING, YOU KNOW, POWER OR IMMUNITY THAT ALREADY EXISTED?

YEAH.

I DON'T THINK IT'S AN EXPANSION OF EXECUTIVE POWER AT ALL.

THE DETERMINATION ABOUT WHETHER THE PRESIDENT HAS IMMUNITY HINGES ON THE PRESIDENT EXERCISING HIS CONSTITUTIONAL ARTICLE 2 PREROGATIVES.

SO HE'S ONLY GOING TO GET IMMUNITY WHEN HE'S ACTING PURSUANT TO THE OFFICIAL POWERS.

THESE GIVEN BY THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES, IT DOESN'T EXPAND THOSE POWERS ONE BIT.

AND CAROLYN SHAPIRO TALKING ABOUT THOSE SORT OF CORE CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS.

HOW BROAD A SET OF AUTHORITY ARE WE TALKING ABOUT HERE?

WELL, I DEGREE THAT THERE ARE SOME SO I WOULD AGREE WITH THE HYPOTHETICAL ABOUT VETOING LAWS THAT CONGRESS COULD CANNOT CRIMINALIZE THE PRESIDENT VETOING CERTAIN LAWS.

BUT I COMPLETELY DISAGREE THAT THE PRESIDENT CANNOT BE SUBJECT TO CRIMINAL LAWS.

THE PRESIDENT IS OBLIGATED TO TAKE CARE THAT THE LAWS BE FAITHFULLY EXECUTED.

THAT IS ONE OF HIS OBLIGATIONS AND THE MAJORITY IN THIS CASE HAS ACTUALLY TURNED THAT OBLIGATION ON ITS HEAD BY SAYING THAT WHEN THE PRESIDENT SAYS THAT HE'S ACTING TO TAKE CARE THAT THE LAW BE PROPERLY EXECUTED, HE'S ACTUALLY IMMUNE FROM PROSECUTION FOR ANYTHING THAT HE DOES AND SEEMS TO ME TO BE THE OPPOSITE OF TAKING CARE THAT THE LAWS BE FAITHFULLY EXECUTED.

YOU KNOW, SHOULD PRESIDENT TRUMP BE RE-ELECTED?

COULD HE SIMPLY INSTRUCT THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TO DROP THE SUFFERED?

YOU COULD DO THAT ANYWAY.

THAT WAS TRUE BEFORE THIS RULING.

SO BIG.

IF HE IS RE-ELECTED, HE WAS ALWAYS GOING.

HE WOULD HAVE DONE THAT BEFORE AND HE WILL WILL DO THAT REGARDLESS OF THE IMMUNITY.

REALLY BELOVED.

ASHLEY KELLER, ARE YOU CONFIDENT THAT THERE ARE ENOUGH CHECKS AND BALANCES IN PLACE ON OF PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY ON THE PREROGATIVES THAT THEY HAVE.

I THINK THAT THE PRESIDENCY HAS EXPANDED QUITE A BIT IN TERMS OF ITS PREROGATIVE.

I THINK THAT WE SHOULD GET BACK TO THE CORE VERTICAL, TOO.

SO I HAVE PROBLEMS WITH THE MODERN PRESIDENCY.

I DON'T THINK THAT THAT HAS ANYTHING SPECIFIC TO DO WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP.

I THINK THIS HAS BEEN A CREEPING ISSUE FOR QUITE SOME TIME.

SO KNOW I'M NOT CONFIDENT ABOUT THAT, BUT IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DECISION THAT ISSUE THE OTHER DAY.

CAROLYN SHAPIRO, THE JUSTICES SENT THIS CASE BACK TO THE LOWER COURT TO DETERMINE WHICH ACTS IN THE INDICTMENT ARE OFFICIAL, WHICH ARE UNOFFICIAL.

DO WE HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT THAT PROCESS ENTAILS?

WE REALLY DON'T.

THEY THEY GAVE ACTUALLY SURPRISINGLY LITTLE GUIDANCE TO THE LOWER COURTS ABOUT HOW TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION.

AND I WILL SAY I AM SURPRISED THAT THEY COULD SAY THAT THESE CONVERSATIONS WITH MEMBERS OF THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, WE'RE ABSOLUTELY IMMUNE AND COULD NOT SAY THAT.

FOR EXAMPLE, HIS SPEECH ON THE ELLIPSE ON JANUARY 6TH AN OFFICIAL ACT THAT THAT WAS AN ACT DESIGNED TO KEEP HIM IN POWER AFTER 1/20/2021 THAT CANNOT BE AN OFFICIAL ACT.

SO I I WAS SURPRISED BY THAT.

AND THEY DID NOT GIVE ANY GUIDANCE TO THE LOWER COURT ABOUT HOW TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE THAT THE FACT THAT THAT'S WHAT THIS WAS ALL ABOUT ABOUT TRYING TO OVERTHROW A FREE AND FAIR ELECTION THAT WE'VE GOT ABOUT A MINUTE LEFT.

ASHLEY KELLER, YOU A GALLUP POLL FOUND ABOUT 40% OF FOLKS APPROVE OF THE SUPREME COURT IN AN ALL-TIME LOW.

IS THIS THE KIND OF CASE THAT COULD AFFECT PUBLIC TRUST IN THE JUSTICES?

I DON'T KNOW.

I'M NOT A GOOD POSTER OR A POLITICIAN ON MORE OF 3RD.

I PROBABLY WANT TO STICK IN MY LANE.

BUT BUT I DO WANT TO SAY THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES HERE GOT BRIEFING FROM BOTH SIDES.

THAT WAS VERY ABSOLUTE.

TRUMP SAID HE CAN DO WHATEVER WANTS THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT ESSENTIALLY SAID HE CAN'T DO ANYTHING.

HE CAN BE PROSECUTED EVEN FOR OFFICIAL ACTS.

AND SO THE SUPREME COURT HAD TO REJECT BOTH OF THOSE POSITIONS.

THEY HAD TO DO IT ON A TRUNCATED TIMETABLE.

THERE WAS NO WAY THEY COULD DODGE THIS CASE.

IT'S OBVIOUSLY A CRUCIALLY IMPORTANT CASE.

AND SO THEY HAD TO HEAR IT AND THEY CHOSE A MIDDLE GROUND AND THEN LEFT FOR THE LOWER COURT TO DECIDE IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, WHAT TO DO WITH THE BROAD PRINCIPLES THEY ANNOUNCE.

I UNDERSTAND PROFESSOR SHAPIRO'S FRUSTRATION THAT THEY DIDN'T GIVE A DETAILED ROADMAP ABOUT HOW TO DO IT, BUT IT'S NOT THEIR FAULT THAT THE PARTIES DIDN'T BRIEF THESE ISSUES.

AND SO THEY'RE SENDING IT BACK DOWN AS THEY ALWAYS DO.

IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, DISTRICT COURT.

AND I KNOW WE WILL HAVE MUCH MORE TO TALK ABOUT AS THIS CASE PROGRESSES, BUT THAT'S WHERE WE'LL HAVE TO LEAVE IT FOR RIGHT NOW.

ASHLEY KELLER, CAROLYN SHAPIRO, THANK YOU BOTH VERY MUCH.

WE