heavier use and heavier risk of negative outcomes. heart attack risk increased 25% compared to nonusers. odds of smoke for marijuana users daily 42% higher. the fox news contributor weighed in. >> i mean, this is incredible new information and it's very important because we have millions of people who are smoking marijuana thinking that it may be less harmful for them than smoking traditional cigarettes and tobacco in other forms and other methods. but the truth is and the data is showing us all the facts that it is just as harmful, if not more harmful. >> this does not mean that pot is not beneficial for some people, those are seizure disorders or glaucoma but the study reinforces her belief it should not be seen as harmless, bill? >> bill: thank you. we learn more all the time. thank you. dana? >> dana: it is 10:00 a.m. fox news alert here. supreme court is set to announce

one or more opinions any moment now as the nation awaits a decision on colorado's effort to remove former president trump from tomorrow's primary ballot. welcome to a brand new hour of "america's newsroom". i'm dana perino. potentially any moment. >> bill: i'm bill hemmer. good morning. hope you had an awesome weekend. we do not know when opinions come today. colorado is one of more than a dozen states voting on super tuesday. so, too, is maine. we'll explain that in a moment. while trump's name is on on the ballot in colorado, a decision today would remove any certainty whether votes for trump will be counted. >> dana: we have fox team coverage. shannon, jonathan and first david starting us off in washington. what do we need to know, david? >> note if this does come and we expect it to likely this would be one day before super tuesday. this would be big and it's not significant just because this is the supreme court but would

af affect donald trump's eligibility on many different ballots on many states across the country as we chug closer to the election. early last month, the nine justices in washington heard arguments about taking donald trump off the ballot. this was a move by colorado voters who say he engaged in insurrection while an officer of the united states. the question is whether it specifically applies to the president and his conduct in office. now, voters in colorado sued arguing he tried to overturn the results of the election resulting in the attack of the capitol. we'll send it back to you. i understand we have the opinion. >> bill: thank you. shall we? roll it, folks. this now is a fox news alert and reading this. the u.s. supreme court rules in favor of former president donald trump in his appeal of a colorado ballot disqualification. that applies to colorado and in all likelihood, it will apply to other states as well. live to shannon for her initial

analysis and reaction now. did you have the inside word, shannon? hello. >> ok, what we have in the court this morning is this decision in favor of president trump. they essentially say the judgment of the colorado supreme court that he can be kicked off the ballot in this manner does not stand. has to be overturned. it's an opinion, the latin for that is the court speaks. supposed to be sort of a unified voice. but we do, as i'm looking through, additional folks who wrote. justin -- justice barrett and i believe other justices write concurrences as well. they may have gotten to this in a different way. i don't see any dissents here. it sounds like the court as a whole is agreed whatever happened with colorado, it was not the proper framework to use here. there is discussion at the end of the main decision that says, you know, there would be essentially a patchwork across the state. so this was one of the worries that the justices had and the questions that came together in

argument were, what happens if we tell one state they can do this? the chief justice said what if one state decides, ok be i'm kicking off a republican and another state says ok, i'm kicking off a democrat? and then we get down to just a handful of states that have all of the candidates' names on the ballot, what would that do to this country? it sounds like the majority of the court has come together in this voice to say what happened in colorado is not correct. it sounds like they're saying states don't have this power. but essentially, this is something that should be left to congress. and so they agreed to that point, but how they got to these different positions and how they got to the agreement, they found some different maps there. they got to the same end result, guys. >> dana: i have two questions for you. one is about sotomayor, one that might disagree. also, does this mean for any other state that's thinking about this like illinois, for example, that if they're thinking of trying to keep trump off the ballot, that they would be barred from doing so based on this decision? >> yeah, what i've seen so far

of this and i'm trying to read through here, it sounds like what they're saying is the states don't have this power. so that would mean any state essentially saying this is something that should have been left to congress. if you're going to, you know, there's questions not to get too wonky but about the 14th amendment if it was self-executing, if states could pick it up and say we find someone we think was guilty of insurrection and so we're saying they can't be on our ballot. there was question, though, whether congress has to give some framework for actually kicking someone off the ballot or making a decision about kicking someone off the ballot. it sounds like here, they say the disruption to allow states would be acute and could nullify the vote of millions and change the election result at different times. they say enforcing section three against federal office holders and candidates rests with congress and not the states. so the judgment of the colorado supreme court cannot stand. that sounds like a clear message without having read the entire opinion, but clear message that states do not have the power. >> dana: we should let you keep

reading. >> bill: we'll allow you a moment to get a few paragraphs into your big brain, shannon. let's move to our team now. jonathan, you're first up to react. how do you hear it? >> i've just been reading the opinion. it's obviously a sweeping. there aren't any real dissents so it does look like it is unanimous, at least on the result, what they have a disagreement on is whether the court had to go as far as it did. now, the most practical result of this is that the voters will be able to vote for the candidate that they prefer. this was a critical moment for this court in history. after all of the years we have spent in this republic, we came to a point where these states claimed that they could unilaterally bar the leading presidential candidate from ballots to prevent people from voting for donald trump. the court here spoke with a strong and it appears unanimous

voice, at least on the result, that that's not going to happen. that voters will vote. they'll make their own verdict regardless of what happens in cases involving president trump. they will cast the most important verdict of all. they will vote for the next president of the united states. >> bill: stand by there, sir. let's get another opinion in here. andy mccarthy, what's your read? >> i think jonathan is right about the bottom line sweeping 9-0 decision with respect to the states. but i think that this case is actually a 5-4 case on what may be the most important decision. if i'm reading this right, what they're saying is section 3 cannot be enforced unless congress legislates through section 5 of the 14th amendment which it has done in enacting a criminal statute which would allow someone to be convicted of insur insurrection.

what i glean from this is they're saying in the next january 6th, next time that congress is called on to ratify an election result that congress cannot use section 3 of the 14th amendment to try to deny donald trump the presidency if he wins the presidential election which is pretty momentous and it looks to me like justice barrett and the three progressives on the court are unhappy that the court reached and decided that. >> dana: shannon, now that you've had a chance maybe to take another look here. anything about the sotomayor keagan jackson contingent? >> yes. yeah. i think andy is exactly right there. and what professor turley said as well. there's not a dissent. they concur on the judgment but they say they don't think the court should have gone to all these additional questions that they did. they said it was enough and justice barrett said in her concurrence, too, to get to bottom line that states cannot

do this. it's not in their purview to do it. but the dissent, again, not dissenters, concurrences that come from justice sotomayor, keagan and jackson takes a different path. they think the court goes too far. by resolving these extra questions, the majority attempts to insulate all alleged insurrectionists from future challenges to their holding federal office. they feel like the court went too far. you try to go as narrowly as possible. again, they agree with the overall decision. but think that the court is trying to give too much cover to future candidates who may face this scenario and they just don't think the court should have gone those extra steps. >> bill: i'm going to show our viewers this map here, guys, if we could. i hope i've got the numbers right, correct me if i'm missing a few. it appears that at least nine states, all right, this applies to colorado. but illinois has a similar charge, so does the state of maine. maine is in super tuesday tomorrow. then everything you see in yellow has a case that's pending.

does this nullify all of those? or some of those? or none of those? >> if you're asking me, i think we'd probably agree these states have lost the ability to do that. i'll let my fellow panelists answer. >> bill: are all these cases done? >> i think they're all dead as dillinger. when you read this opinion, there's no dissent that the states cannot enforce the 14th amendment provision. the only disagreement, as we've been discussing, is whether the court should have gone even further to sort of close off future arguments or challenges without an action from congress. the majority is saying that, look, you need congress to act here before you can enforce this provision. some of the justices felt they didn't really to deal with that

question. they didn't say, by the way, that they disagree with the conclusion necessarily as much as that is a bit of a reach beyond where they need to go. and they are saying look, we have a long tradition of minimizing our footprint of trying to stay confined to the question at hand. that's not much of a disagreement. you know, keep in mind that for months now, this has been literally called an unassailable theory, various professors and columnists have been saying that the only thing that will stop the disqualification of donald trump are the conservative justices acting as political robots. well, this is a unanimous court rejecting that theory. >> dana: what's interesting, andy, is this is obviously no doubt a big win for president trump. big win at the highest court in the land. it also makes the biden team

have to live in reality that these court cases are not going to be the thing that gets trump off the ballots or out of the race. that they are going to have to run against him. and what i'm wondering is and i know you can't tell the future, crystal ball. there are other cases that president trump has asked the supreme court to look at. with this ruling and this kind of result and unanimity at least on the fact that the states can't do this unilaterally unless congress acts in those other provisions which they're not going to do, does that mean that president trump might have a better position going into the court on those other cases as well? >> i don't think so, dana. i think, you know, first of all, it seems to me that in terms of minimizing its footprint as jonathan referred to what this court wants to make clear is it is not deciding the 2024 election. this decision has been crafted

in a way that depending on what happens in the election the court is essentially saying don't come back to us after the election and have democrats in congress trying to disqualify trump under section 3 of the 14th amendment. that's done. we're not doing that. however, they're gearing up for a september trial of trump in the january 6th case. you can see that already from the reporting last week where the jack smith prosecution team basically trashed what previously has been known as the unwritten 60-day rule where the justice department supposedly won't take action. that might influence an election. they said last week that's want operative. "the new york times" in its reporting about this particular case that came down today noted that if the court kept the same pace with respect to the immunity case as they've kept with this section 3 case, that

would open up the door to have a september trial of the january 6th case in washington. so i think the democrats are very much banking on court action to hurt trump's campaign maybe fatally, and i think the supreme court is saying, you know, we don't want to be involved in this come after election day when somebody comes to us and asks us to disqualify him. >> bill: that's really interesting. you and turley and shannon, you've been telling us for a month that this decision would be -- even on the day it was argued, you said it's 8-1, 9-0. and all three of you were right on that. amy barrett says, i think it's her last line. all nine justices agree in the outcome of this case. that's the message that americans should take home. so this was argued on the 8th of february. it was rendered today, right, march 4th. that's 25 days?

i mean, shannon, you'd admit that's lightning fast for the u.s. supreme court. and so now, we've got this immunity case, the third week of april. and you've all been telling us that it's quite possible they could issue a decision on that by the end of june. what i think is really interesting about the timing there, if you look at the calendar, for the past couple of years and we've been doing this show for a while so we know it's really not the last week of june, right, shannon? last couple of years, they bleed into the first week of july. and this year, monday is july 1st. tuesday july 2nd. wednesday is july 3rd. then america goes off on its big holiday weekend. and i think based on today's decision, that we're going to hear from this court on immunity right before america goes into the july 4th weekend. and that -- that may decide the outcome come november. does the logic stack up for you

that way, shannon? >> it does. the timing only once, i think, in the 17 years i've been covering the court have they gone too far into july. they try to wrap it up end of june. that's a goal. that timeline they're trying to get to is a goal. sometimes they go past the stated end or the planned end of the term. i think the immunity case we would all agree is going to be much more complex than the arguments over this colorado ballot situation. i think the court will be much more divided, potentially, over that. i think it just provides more places for division than this particular case did. so i think it's going to be complex, there's going to be nuance to it, potentially that's going to take a little bit more vetting and opinion writing. you know, what they do once they have a case, they hear it. they have a vote quickly within a couple of days afterwards usually. and then they start writing the opinions and there can be multiple opinions and even as you're seeing here, they're speaking with one voice, people have their each way they wanted to say in some of the different groups.

i think the immunity case will take more time for sure. i think your timing is right, early july probably at the latest for a decision. >> dana: how much time, andy, does something like this take up for trump's team? he's trying to run a presidential campaign and he has all these court cases. that's part of the storyline that we're following, of course, that for something like this now to be off their plate, does that clear them up to be able to focus on some of the other cases? >> you know, dana, they're in so much hot water with litigation and i think, you know, i've been saying for a long time don't fall asleep on their civil litigation. that's taking up much more of their time than expected. for example, just the sheer burden of having to put together over half a billion dollars worth of bonds to appeal the two cases that are currently on the table is taking them a lot of time. they worked into the weekend in litigation federally on that. and i think the other thing we need to pay attention to, the

immunity decision is very important. but i think we probably all expect the supreme court to uphold what the d.c. circuit did. i'll let my co-panelists speak for themselves on that, obviously. >> bill: meaning what? >> much more important is the obstruction case that the court will decide at the same time which could blow up smith's prosecution in washington. >> bill: just remind us, what did the appeals court say, andy? >> they said that trump does not have immunity from criminal prosecution and i think the supreme court will say the same thing. but the case to keep your eye on is the obstruction case. we miss it because trump is not a party to that case. they are looking at the same statute that is key to smith's prosecution of trump in washington. and if they -- as i expect they may, if they -- if they say the justice department has not been correctly applying that statute, that's going to have a catastrophic impact for smith on his indictment.

>> bill: professor turley, what do you think of all that? what i divine from shannon's answer and now andy's answer is that this is not a preview of a conclusion on immunity. >> no. i agree with everything andy said, as usual. i think that the odds favor jack smith on the outcome. but, you know, the supreme court could very well decide that it agrees with the result but not the rationale of the d.c. circuit. there's a lot of unanswered questions on presidential immunity that may have given justices discomfort. they may want to see some greater delineation of lines trying to show when a president does have immunity in future cases. there are members of this court who take a very robust view of executive power and privilege. once they make that decision, it will return the mandate to the trial court. is it possible that they could

still hold a trial before the election? yes. but allegations against the court that it's slow walking this case are, as usual, overwrought and undersupported. i mean, the court is actually moving at a much faster pace than it usually does. examples that people have raised in the past are distinguishable as to why the court moved a little faster in those cases. i think we have to take a moment here to understand the weight and the gravity of what the court just did. what was being argued here would have taken the world's most successful democracy and introduced this incredibly destablizing factor that would allow states to unilaterally remove a candidate from the ballot. and i also want to note that we have to stop and give credit to the fact that it's not just the supreme court that is speaking with one voice. it is a clear, unanimous voice rejecting this theory.

but it was also democratic judges and clerks that rejected these arguments. colorado, maine most recently illinois those are the outliars. many of those other people that rejected them were democrats that did the right thing like the three liberal justices on the court. they stood with their colleagues and spoke with one voice and said enough! that we are not going to introduce what justice jackson referred to as undemocratic interpretation into the 14th amendment. and we should take some solace and encouragement from that. i think the court is showing this divided country that there's still things that bind us to each other, a certain covenant of faith that we can find in the constitution. >> dana: i wanted to pick up on that because i would imagine, shannon, that this morning, the colorado supreme court is eating some humble pie with their coffee to be smacked down like this. when your left wing ideas are

too weak even for some of the liberal justices and you showed this unanimity, there's a line that amy barrett, the justice writes had her piece towards the end which she says this is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency. writings on the court should turn the national temperature down, not up. i think that's maybe what they feels overall about lots of different issues. and so what kind of sort of tone setting does this have for the court? i know you pay a lot of attention to all of those dynamics because they have a lot of big cases coming up that they're going to have to decide by june. >> they do. they've got abortion. they've got guns and other trump-related cases. as andy pointed out, there's a case the fisher case that involves the january 6th defendant that could have a huge impact on president trump on the jack smith case. if that defendant wins at the supreme court, those obstruction charges against president trump go away further weakening that jack smith case. that's going to be argued in april. but i think that, you know,

we've seen times in recent really tough decisions that have come out with them over the past couple of years where there's been some back and forth in the dissents and majority. and you try to feel like it's not personal. they always say it's not. they clearly, these justices have different views on the law and different views on conclusions about really tough issues they had recently. roe v. wade and affirmative action, higher ed, all kinds of things where you have seen the tensions in the higher court. we felt like this colorado decision would come more quickly. i think the chief is trying to get them to a 9-0 decision. maybe that's why it feels like it's taken longer than we would. he did get them there. we talk about these extra concurrences. as you noted with justice barrett, they want to essentially be speaking with one voice especially on matters that look like they're going to affect politics because that is the last thing this court ever wants to appear to be doing. >> bill: uh-huh. andy, i think you were the one that said it a couple of minutes ago that the court does not want to get involved in national

elections. if it was jonathan, excuse me, i can't remember. i think it was you, andy, and both of you gentlemen had said that this court did not want to go back to a court 24 years ago with bush v. gore and they really regretted they had to take that case and decide a national election. but if you -- if you rule against the president on immunity, are you not deciding an election with that decision? as opposed to the other side by suggesting that, you know, that whole clause about in office and plus you have the presidential records after the documents in miami that if you were to say he does have blanket immunity from those charges, and if you want to re-elect him, you'll have the option to do that in november. if you don't want to re-elect him, that's your option, too. but we will not be involved in it at that level. how would you address that, andy? >> bill, either side will be

able to claim that, you know, the court decided the election depending on how that comes out although again, i really think that trump would be surprised if he won the immunity claim. i always thought the immunity claim was important to him not because of the substance of it but because it's one of the few issues that you can appeal pretrial in federal criminal proceedings. so it suited to his delay strategy, but, you know, bigger picture, we insulate the courts from politics because we don't want them worrying about what they're going to be accused of. we want them to just apply the law and get the decision right. and i would say with great respect for justice barrett, you know, i wouldn't be worrying about, you know, stridency or whatever she fears would be the perception of how a court or how this court rules on these hot button cases. they have to do the best they

can to get it right. and if there's an issue in front of them that has to be decided, they have to decide it and the last thing i would like to see is the court overworrying about how they're going to be perceived. you know, like bell belichick says do your job and do the best you can and the rest has to take care of itself. >> dana: that's what i was talking about for the democrats now, it helps them have to deal in reality, jonathan, they're going to most likely face president trump for the general election. on truth social a moment ago, former president trump writing in all caps, big win for america double exclamation point, so now, he has this one cleared off his plate. i know we talked about the other ones. but for momentum, as we were talking about earlier, just in the polls from the weekend. we see "the new york times" poll, the fox poll, the a.p. poll, the momentum is really behind president trump at this moment. >> i think that part of that is

due to the optics and to the disinclination of citizens to see these types of efforts to resolve elections in the courts. i mean, it's the pile-on, i think, that has really repelled many citizens. it is watching democratic district attorneys join a special counsel and various civil actions across the country where this president is being really taken pillar to post across the country civilly, criminally before the election. that doesn't sit well with the american people. nor did this disqualification theory. now, the theory now has been put to rest. and the court here fulfilled its primary and most important job which is to transcend politics. many of us covered bush v. gore. this is not bush v. gore. this is a court speaking with one clear voice. you know, bush v. gore was

damaging not just for the country and for the institution of the court, but also for the justices themselves. this was a bitterly divided opinion. you'll remember famously that ruth bader ginsburg ended her dissent not with respectfully dissent but just dissent. and that was viewed as capturing that moment. this is a different opinion in a different court. and i think you're absolutely right. this is a great victory for chief justice roberts. this was the moment where the court had to show the country that there's some things we remain united on. and some things that we can speak together on. and they just did. and that's why this is such an incredibly important and edifying moment. >> bill: one thing i'd point here, the colorado supreme court was appointed and they weren't elected. >> dana: right. >> bill: lot of people saw that as might have been a red flag from the beginning. did you want to say something? >> dana: well, i was not working

for the bush administration in 2000. i went to bed in california thinking president bush had won. i woke up and peter said, so sorry, it didn't happen. and then -- but the decision by the court was on the recount itself. like it wasn't that the supreme court decided the election. it was about the -- and i think that the democrats have said that for 24 years. and it is not right. i do -- we do have this in. president trump is going to speak at noon. so you will hear from him up from there and his reaction. although we know he said big win for america. >> bill: that will be at 12:00 noon. mar-a-lago. and chime on in, your initial reaction of what we heard from the court, 9-0. >> i'll put it a little more pointedly than my colleagues here who are brilliant legal analysts and take the political perspective on. this is a huge repudiation of the left's effort to

delegitmasize the supreme court and this is a 9-0 smackdown of the left's efforts to politicize the law. that's what happened here. and, you know, you got to remember, the democrats have been running a campaign for years since these conservative justices were appointed to delegitmasize the court. chuck schumer stood on the steps of that supreme court, he said to kavanaugh and gorsuch, you will not know what hit you when you go forward with these awful decisions. they have been trying to delegitmasize this court and this is a repudiation of the left's efforts to politicize our law. this is, you know, the abusing the constitution in order to kick a candidate off of the ballot is an abuse of our system. and you've got a situation now where many people on the left and many democrats seem to think that their argument seems to be donald trump is such a threat to our democracy that we need to burn down our democracy in order to save it. that we need to tear down the institution. doesn't matter what they do. doesn't matter what is standing

in the way. if an institution is in the way, we're going to tear it down and we're going to stop him from getting on the ballot. in a way, they're more of a threat to our democracy than he is. because if you look at january 6th, all our institutions held. everybody did their jobs. there was no chance donald trump was going to hold on to the presidency. but if you tear down the institutions, then someone could one day threaten our democracy because the institutions are the guard rails that preserve our democracy and we need to preserve them and the supreme court just preserved one of the important guard rails of our democracy. >> dana: i wanted to pick up on that because, you know, as i mentioned before, like the left is making things harder for biden and kamala harris to be able to gain in the polls. because they're pulling them constantly in a direction that's against what the majority of americans want. you can see this on crime and look at the outcomes that we have on there after all these liberal d.a.'s. look at immigration. that's now the number one issue across the country. why? because of all the executive

orders president biden used to dismantle what president trump had put in place. you look at israel. climate. energy. i could go on, and mark, i just wonder if somebody at the white house or at the campaign is saying guys, we have to do something here if we want to make this competitive in november. >> yeah. i mean, if you want to look at why joe biden is in so much trouble, look at the number 91. 91 indictments and 91 executive orders overturning trump's border policies. those two things together could deliver donald trump the presidency. i mean, if you think about the -- if you're a democrat, you watched in 2016 as donald trump rode the issue of illegal immigration to the presidency. so you get the white house back. and what do you do? you unleash the worst border crisis in american history and you think that's not going to help him? and then you've got 91 indictments. charles manson had 10. i mean, civil suits to try to destroy his -- to destroy his --

him financially. this 14th amendment effort in what bill said, nine states, to try to kick him off the ballot. it makes the american people look at this and think these people are crazy! you know, they make themselves look more of a threat to democracy than trump. and so when you get the question of saving our democracy and the ballot, it's not just liberals. >> bill: i take your argument one step further. if people outside of new york paid attention to how the legal system has bent itself into some twisted mess of legal steel to try to nail him on this, that and the other, the list is really long. stand by. we'll get reaction from the white house. jill january turner standing by there. karl rove, your initial reaction, 9-0. hello again to you. >> look, following up on what mark was talking about, think about this. the decision in colorado to kick

him off the ballot was a 4-3 decision on a court, on the state supreme court which are all democrats. in fact, the most liberal member of the court was the one who wrote the 3-0 dissent, the three-member dissent saying no, we shouldn't kick him off the ballot. it goes to the u.s. supreme court and we fortunately have a 9-0 decision by the court saying he should be on the ballot. what a rebuke to the left? when part of the left says, you know what? this is going way too far. and i think mark was absolutely right. the extremists on the left were attempting to undermine the electoral process and also, we're, you know, in essence breaking from other democrats who said, you know what? he has a right to be on the ballot. why are we making this an issue because we'll cause people to say he's being treated unfairly and he was. and so good for the u.s. supreme court. 9-0. strong message to follow. >> dana: karl, the one thing i wanted to get your take on is my

instincts are telling me this actually gives the biden team maybe a little bit more of a reason to step on the gas and to try to beat president trump on the merits rather than waiting for these left wing ideas on the judicial front to try to stop him from being the nominee. >> yeah, well, probably -- you've given them good advice because they really have, i think, been counting on these extraneous things to bring him down. look, some of these things have taken away his time and energy from the campaign but none of them have seemed to materially damaged his standing with the american electorate. this is what it's all about. getting the hearts and minds of the american people and a lot of people have looked at these things and said some of them give me pause. i want to hear more about them. but some of these seem to me to be over the top and piling on and unfair. and this was the most unfair of all. the idea that somehow or another, excuse me, the judges and state election authorities

should be free to kick the former president off the state ballot was thought by most americans to be unfair and unwarranted. >> bill: just contribute to that. a lot of people may not have known this. but that carroll case, karl, new york changed the statute of limitations so she could file. they rewrote the law for one year and they changed it back. on the civil case with regard to his property valuations, never been brought before in the history of new york. and now you got the bragg case coming up in a couple of weeks on a case that's 8 years old and you can debate whether or not this was, you know, was this hush money? was this a legal payment? what was it in the end? and i mean, that's in the offing very soon. last comment, karl. >> even in the case involving the georgia fake electors, this has been -- this has been undermined by the fact that we now try to figure out that the prosecutor probably hired the principal prosecuting attorney who was her lover and that paid

them a lot of money. talk about undermining yourself. you're right. maybe this is all a secret plot by donald trump to gain public support by having his -- by having his foes and enemies go way over the top. >> bill: that would be a tough one. but that would be genius. that would be genius. >> it would be genius. >> dana: thank you. >> bill: let's get jillian turner from the white house. are they saying much of anything right now? >> bill, the white house has not issued any comments in response to this latest supreme court ruling and we really have zero expectation they are going to do so. biden's re-election campaign, though, is highly likely to put out some kind of a response to today's ruling. so we're keeping our eyes and ears peeled for you on that, of course. now, the reason i say this is because back on december 20th, that's the day after colorado first issued this ruling kicking trump off the ballot effectively was asked about this issue and to weigh in from the podium and she said very clearly to

reporters that day that consideration to prevent the white house from commenting on this or any other presidential re-election campaign matters. the president himself has been asked about this. most recently back at the end of january, he told a reporter that he was fine with former president trump staying on the ballot in colorado personally but you got to keep in mind, bill, the president's re-election campaign is build around this message of trying to save democracy. the president himself personally has depicted the former president has a direct threat to democracy many times over. most recently when he traveled to the state of pennsylvania for his campaign swing. he delivered that primetime address to the nation in which he proceeded to, you know, depict the former president as a direct threat to democracy. he's made no bones about the way he feels about this. you can guess based on those comments how the politically minded biden feels vs. the presidentially minded biden. we're not going to hear anything from the white house today, tomorrow or moving forward on

this. but the biden campaign is likely to give us something any moment now and bring it to you. >> bill: got it. thank you. north lawn of the white house. >> dana: i want to bring in bret baier, of course, the main 6:00 p.m. guy that you got to pay attention to every night for "special report." let's look a couple of days ahead and that's another primetime address that the president of the united states will give on thursday night, state of the union address. it's later than usual. and in the audience will be, presumably, the supreme court justices. they're invited to attend. and it will be interesting to see if the president of the united states says anything to them, right? remember when obama did, it was considered very bad form because they're not there as political props. anything they say will be interesting to watch, either what the justices, you know, their demeanor and whether president biden says anything about this or them and the threat to democracy. your reaction this morning? >> bret: yeah, good morning.

i think you're right. i doubt president biden is going to go down that road but who knows? the state of the union. i do think this 9-0 ruling is significant. it is something that a lot of experts on both sides of the aisle kind of predicted after listening to the oral arguments and the questions that were coming from specifically the left leaning justices, you know. justice kagan, justice sotomayor, some of the questions were really pointed about how you couldn't -- a state couldn't take the national election and threaten it by its own decision. i think it was expected, some thought, you know, could be 8-1. but 9-0 sends a strict message to not only colorado but obviously illinois and maine which also have judges who have made that ruling. >> bill: yep. we'll see whether or not those cases are expunged as of today, our legal analyst about 30 minutes ago suggesting that that would be the case.

bret, as you look at this, we would need a flow chart and sometimes we've used a flow chart. >> dana: i need one, absolutely. >> bret: karl rove, where are you? >> bill: it appears that he's racking up some legal victories. but only outside the state of new york. >> bret: that's right, yeah. so far he's on the line for about $500 million in order to be able to appeal a couple of those rulings in new york. and you're right. i think that there have been some significant rulings but there's still a lot to come here. and whatever happens to the georgia case? you've got the documents case that is really in the supreme court's hands as well about january 6th for the immunity part of that. i think that, you know, there's a lot of shoes left to fall here and how that plays politically, we have yet to see. obviously, the former president is enjoying a couple of weeks of pretty good news stories for him

and some great poll numbers. "new york times," siena and others that are showing him in a dominating place at this point in the election. >> bill: you've got super tuesday tomorrow. sorry, want to jump in quickly. and there was some reporting over the weekend on sunday that nikki haley, bret, may or may not have any ads past yesterday or today. and that she may or may not have any appearances past today, this monday. bret, you've been following that. can you confirm any of that? >> bret: i've heard that as well. i haven't talked to anybody on the campaign beyond, you know, some people tied to it tangentially. if that's the case and holds to be true, that's very telling. her only win so far is the d.c. primary and you look at the map and look at the polls, and it's tough to see a breakthrough any place on super tuesday despite the fact that 11 out of 15 states are open primaries where democrats and independents can

vote. but that's a telltale sign. we saw that from ron desantis, too, after iowa. >> bill: we will see how that plays out together. we'll see in new york tomorrow night. >> dana: yes, thanks, bret. president trump is going to speak at 12:00 p.m. that will be from florida and this comes at a time, bill, when you have democrats who want biden to win re-election saying his state of the union address must be flawless. that it is the most important state of the union in the history of the country. i mean, couldn't they raise expectations any higher for this speech? i would be downplaying expectations dramatically. >> bill: yeah, i don't know how much his schedule has changed. i think at daybreak today, we believed it was at camp david. one would assume trying to put the finishing touches on the speech. and then there's something on the schedule for tomorrow. i can't recall. but then wednesday is wide open. >> dana: be practicing that speech. >> bill: practicing that again. monday and wednesday of this week. brooke has just spoken to the former president about the ruling from the supreme court.

she joins us now and what was his reaction? >> good morning, bill. that's right. i just spoke with the former president. he said that the ruling today is both unifying and inspirational. he's really touting the fact that this ruling was a unanimous decision, 9-0. he says it's a great win for america. he told me it's very, very important for him. what he's really focusing on now is the pending immunity ruling, you know, he is waiting for arguments. the supreme court decided last week that they would take up arguments on that presidential immunity appeal that he and his team have made to the supreme court because of special counsel jack smith's case. now, those arguments are expected to be heard on april 22nd and we will hear a decision on that by mid to late june. and he said, basically, equally important for our country is the decision today but will be the decision that they will soon make on immunity for president. he said without which the presidency would be relegated to nothing more than a ceremonial

position which is far from what the founders intended. the former president said that no president would be able to properly and effectively function without complete and total immunity. i said that would put our country at great risk. but again, he is really touting the fact that this is a unanimous 9-0 decision, both unifying and inspirational for the people of the country. that's what he just told me. i just hung up with him. >> bill: already making the public argument about immunity. that may come, again, as we mentioned at the end of june and first part of july right before the july 4th holiday. nothing says red, white and blue like a u.s. supreme court decision that could portend the outc outcome of national election ve. he has a press conference at noon. is it a press conference or address before the camera? >> we don't know exactly. right now, we should be ready with anything with that. of course, as you mentioned that decision could come before july 4th but also could come right

before the republican convention in july which begins mid july. and if he's the nominee, ellert be coming off on the heels of a supreme court win which would effectively take out that jack smith case in washington, d.c., but also something to keep an eye on is this classified records investigation and those charges down in florida. now, he was in court on friday in florida, the former president, and the trial for the classified records case, while it's not directly linked to this jack smith immunity case for the washington, d.c. charges, it would definitely have an effect. so that trial was set to begin in may. but judge cannon seems to be pushing that down, delaying that, and obviously, the president's team, former president's team is pushing for a later start date as is jack smith. so there's a lot of dates to watch. we don't know exactly what he's going to say at mar-a-lago at noon, but we'll keep watching. >> bill: ok, thanks. appreciate that. >> dana: we still have shannon,

andy and jonathan turley with us as well. shannon, i want to get back to you and talk about the -- maybe just the timing of so many big decisions that the court is going to be making over the next four months. i mean, a lot of consequential decisions. and i mean, i think that that might be unifying. it also might be very much not. >> shannon: well, as i said, we've talked about the trump-related decisions they had that could have an impact on the election. i mentioned a couple of others. guns and abortion. there are a couple of abortion cases. and were, even though they're not directly linked to president trump, they've been used on the campaign trail repeatedly in states where there's not even an abortion measure on the ballot. there's very much a conversation. we've seen the vice president go out quite a bit recently. that's been another one of her assignments, reproductive rights and out there talking about that. so you get a couple of abortion decisions from the supreme court, again, in june, end of the term. that's going to ignite a conversation again for democrats on the campaign trail so there are all kinds of things coming this term from the court that

could have an impact on what happens in november. i want to quickly just touch on something that mark brought up. i think it's important. talking about the integrity of the court. there have been a lot of attempts to try to sideline a number of the justices in particular justice thomas. there have been reports on justice sotomayor, ethical issues and all kinds of things. i can tell you there's a sense from some over at the court that there's a bit of frustration in that to the point mark made, they're the ones that want to say we're here responsibly and you'll need us at some point to resolve some of these election fights. when you fought so hard to chip away at the integrity of the court. when we stand here ready to uphold things and protect this country, you limit our ability or at least question in some people's minds our ability to do that. >> bill: wow, emphasized by the 9-0 ruling today, shannon. well stated. trey gowdy is on the phone, former prosecutor and recovering congressman from the state of south carolina. your reaction, good morning.

>> glad it was unanimous in result. if you read the opinion, they have different analyses that they employ. you know, we live in this world where we there's a hunger for unanimity and for unity, if you will, and for the u.s. supreme court with all of its ideological diversity to say 9-0, hey, colorado supreme court you were wrong. we shouldn't be surprised. even republicans on the colorado supreme court didn't agree with it. it was a very, very close decision. number two, when is the last time we were talking about the ninth and 10th amendment? those things have been dead. but they're referenced in this opinion. >> dana: politically for president trump who is going to give remarks at noon, he's going to say big win for america and his ability to sort of get this particular issue off of his legal plate. you still got fully, you know, all you can eat buffet of legal

issues the democrats put in place for him. but politically for him, do you think that helps continue the momentum that we're seeing that's just inevitable in the polls from "the new york times," fox news and a.p. over the weekend? >> yes, and this particular instance, you know, he was politically targeted. and he can safely say that is the unanimous opinion of the u.s. supreme court including justices that otherwise do not like me and will not vote for me. i would encourage him to do something that he doesn't often do which is show humility because there are other decisions that are coming that he may not agree with. i don't think he's going to win the presidential immunity case before the court. so, you know, it's confusing when you say i love you on one day and i hate you the next. show a little restraint when you win. and show a little restraint when you don't win. argue the merits of it. this was not a close case. and anyone who listened to oral

arguments knows that. but neither is the presidential immunity. i don't think that one is going to wind up being close either the other direction. >> bill: why do you say that? >> because i don't think -- i think we are a country where we fundamentally reject the notion that anyone is above the law. and the notion that you can somehow silence your political opponents and escape criminal culpability unless you are impeached, i don't know, i had some -- i had one president's lawyers on my show last night, they're now changing the argument. that's not really what we meant. but that's what they said before the supreme court. and that's just an argument most americans reject. we are a nation of laws. not a nation of men and women. and we hold that sacrosanct. when you put people above the law, lots of us raise our eyebrows on both sides of the aisle. >> dana: what did they say they're changing -- what do they say they meant? >> what they meant was they were

drawing a distinction between public and private acts. and obviously, killing someone or ordering the assassination of a political opponent is a private act. that's not what i heard during oral arguments. i -- i heard an answer that it might very well be contemplating impeachment and how to vote that has harmed or threatened that you would need to go with the impeachment before you could be criminally prosecuted. and i think most americans just -- we understand that politicians need some immunity just like cops and just like judges to do their jobs. but we also know where that line is. and that line, for most americans, stops at criminality. >> bill: ok, trey, help me with this. i believe the wording is in office, right? so -- >> in office in terms of the

political vs. private act. >> bill: yes, correct. so in office would mean that you would have the immunity while president. so as to not affect decisions that you would make. that once you're out of office, somebody could come back and hit you with this suit or this charge while you're a private citizen. >> i think that is one of the arguments. i think the other argument which we also saw what the special counsel report, you know, lay aside the defendability to form the requisite intent is that presidents cannot be prosecuted or indicted for that matter while they're in office. now, you will not find that in the constitution. that's a d.o.j. decision. i think there's americans that would say wait a minute, if you commit a clearly criminal act, why would you not -- why would we have to wait and run the risk of the statute of limitations

running simply because you hold office? if there's anything americans fundamentally believe, it is that no one is above the law. they're not below it. but they're not above it. >> bill: uh-huh. >> dana: all right, thank you so much. >> bill: appreciate that. thank you. >> dana: i have a question for jonathan turley still with us. i have a question that like it might sound like a dumb question. i'm going to ask it anyway. that's how i get information. president trump is going to give remarks at noon. does he have any concern, should he be concerned at all, about anything that he might say affecting the other supreme court cases that are going to be in front of the court? >> well, the president has never been particularly burdened by those concerns. it is very common if you look in the corners of these press conferences, you'll see his legal counsel in tight fetal positions in the corner. usually lawyers beg their

clients to not make public comments on cases. the president has flipped that script. he's actually gone to all of these proceedings to highlight for the american people all of the different efforts to nail him criminally or civilly. so i expect that is not going to change. and that was his style while he was president. there were things that he stated on social media that actually were cited by courts to rule against his administration. but we now have seen this merger of the law and politics in this very weird universe in which we're living in. and he's going to continue that. but so has his opponent. the greatest takeaway here is that for months, the newspapers, networks, have said that this was an unassailable theory that only the hardcore conservatives would vote against. well, this was unanimous rejection of that unasaleable theory and it leaves a lot of

people wondering about how they're receiving news and how they're receiving analysis. this theory was wrong from the outset. many of us said it was not well founded in the text of the constitution. so it was very predictable in one sense. but it's very edifying in another because i expect that you'll hear tomorrow people saying we need to expand the court. this shows why we need to put reliable liberals on the court. not these people that just voted with their colleagues. you'll hear those same voices and they will be amplified. >> bill: really interesting point. dana and i also often talk about the cable news bubble. and we're knee deep in it every day, as you guys are as well. and you wonder how many of the american people are, you know. the border is a really good example. i'll leave that to the side for another day. with us now, joining us by telephone, harold ford. nice to hear from you.

9-0. your reaction now? 9-0, your reaction now? >> i would agree. thanks for having me. i think this was the right decision. i think it was important for the court to speak with clarity and one voice around this. i agree largely with one of the points that jonathan made, that this will settle this issue, and you leave it to the votaries. it was interesting, i have not read the entire opinion, but the summary i read made it clear that it was congress' decision, not for states to make this determination. but i think it is fine for states and, for that matter, anyone to challenge the validity and efficacy of the law, and even more so right for our courts to make clear what is right and what is not, what is constitutional and what's unconstitutional. so i am pleased that the court decided this morning, and will leave this to voters to make this determination going

forward. >> what about this point i've made a couple of times, that left wing ideas, especially weak ones, are hurting president biden and weighing hi? it could this be a moment when, at least the campaign, or heat from the oval office, can say enough? and to focus and figure out how they try to call back some sort of semblance of approval with the american people. >> i think the politics of it are what they are. i think they are probably a number of democrats, even some republicans, who believe that president trump should not be allowed to run. but that's not the point. the law is what the law is. so i don't know exactly how the politics may settle on this, but you can look at a number of issues and think that maybe both sides could tell their side to calm down. i think when president trump announced his opposition to the

supreme court decision around the way families and women are allowed to grow their families and start families, he spoke to the politics of that very early. the people have every right to challenge the legality of things, the constitutionality of things, and voters have every right to determine whom they want to govern them. with a 50-50 race in front of us with president trump looking as if he's ahead and all the polling in battleground states, maybe democrats should take a look at and begin to encourage some supporters to think differently. >> bill: thank you, harold. and from andy mccarthy. it appears this is going to be one hot summer, andy. if they can deliver this opinion the way they did 25 days by my count, we will get an answer on immunity at the end of june, early july. in two weeks after that we will be in milwaukee for the republican convention and he will step on stage and take on the nomination, as well.

andy? >> i just want to push back on the exuberance about the l'affaire campaign seemingly lost. president trump is going to lose the immunity claim, and the democrats are planning to put him on trial after labor day. federal defendants have to be in court every day for their trials. he is going to have a 1-2 or more month trial starting after labor day, running after election day, we don't know how much he will be damaged by that, if they get away with doing it. >> dana: that's a good point. thank you for being with us and to all of our panelists on this breaking news day. quite a remarkable one. president trump posting on truth social, a big win for america. you will hear from them at noon today. >> bill: it has been a monday. welcome back. >> dana: nothing like trial by fire x not harris faulkner will take you through the next hour. here she is. >> harris: >> harris: breaking news, we are set to hear from former president

t