hello, i'm lewis vaughnjones. you're watching the context on bbc news. donald trump does get absolute immunity for the acts he carried out as the officeholder — but there are those acts that he carried out as office—seeker, which do not get immunity. i think this is a disgraceful decision. you know, we have six republican appointees on the court who claim to be originalists and textualists — this decision has nothing to do with origionalism or textualism. pretty remarkable expansion . of the powers of the president, i because this the first time we'vel ever had on the books, you know, firm supreme court precedent. establishing any sort of criminal immunity for a president for any of their actions. i immunity for donald trump — kind of. the supreme court has ruled

that the former president — and all other us presidents — have immunity from prosecution on official acts — but not from any unofficial acts. what will that mean for lower courts considering charges against him overjanuary 6th? we will hear from a panel of expert legal analysts. also tonight... it's election week in france. the far right national rally made big gains in the first round of the parliamentary election, winning a third of the vote. president emmanuel macron�*s centrist alliance dropping to third place. and later, hurricane beryl is buffeting parts of the carribean. it's the most powerful hurricane ever recorded injune. there are warnings the damage will be "potentially catastrophic". sting the us supreme court has ruled donald trump is partially immune from prosecution for actions taken while he was in the white house. the justices said that the president enjoyed absolute immunity for official acts taken as president — but not for unofficial acts.

mr trump had argued the charges he faced for allegedly trying to subvert the 2020 election result were without merit. courts will now need to distinguish between what were official and unofficial actions — and that will be delayed well beyond november's election. trump has posted the following message on truth social... "big win for our constitution and democracy. proud to be an american!". our correspondent nomia iqbal is outside the supreme court for us. talk us through this decision. it's a historic talk us through this decision. it�*s a historic and consequential decision. there were lots of questions as to why the supreme court to get on because when donald trump appealed, saying that he should get absolute immunity because trying to question the election results was what he was doing in his capacity as president, as a lower court disagreed with him saying he

doesn't get absolute immunity. he appealed to the supreme court and here we are. they save this opinion will last and it is a blockbuster one. this is a ruling that effectively decides that there were some things that donald trump did in his official capacity, which means that he is immune, but there are those that he did in... is a private candidate, which are not immune. the question is, which parts of the indictment can now go forward and which ones can't. to give you an example. the supreme court said that his conversations with the vice president mike pence, who he was pressuring to overturn the election result were covered by immunity as well as his communication with the justice department because he was just talking to them in his capacity as a president. another part of the opinion which i think is consequential. thejustices opinion which i think is consequential. the justices said that the president has immunity with

respect to his official acts but also the evidence related to those official acts cannot be brought to trial. that is a difficult position for the special counciljack smith, it renders parts of the indictment irrelevant because you need to show the official act to show intention for what trump is alleged to have done. it is back to the drawing board in some ways for the judge in this trial. donald trump can appeal again and it could air damp at the supreme court again. {flare again and it could air damp at the supreme court again.— supreme court again. give us the reaction to _ supreme court again. give us the reaction to this _ supreme court again. give us the reaction to this decision. - supreme court again. give us the reaction to this decision. for- supreme court again. give us the l reaction to this decision. for trump it is a victory. _ reaction to this decision. for trump it is a victory, this _ reaction to this decision. for trump it is a victory, this is _ reaction to this decision. for trump it is a victory, this is what he - it is a victory, this is what he wanted. he wanted absolute immunity but i don't think that was ever on the cards, the supreme court had indicated in april that was going to happen. but it is a victory in the sense that it looks like it's going to be tricky for this indictment to go forward. it doesn't mean it

won't, thejustices did not go forward. it doesn't mean it won't, the justices did not say the case should not go forward but it does delay. that is his big strategy, embracing these delays in order to strategy, embracing these delays in orderto ——... embracing strategy, embracing these delays in order to ——... embracing legal proceedings to delay. president biden�*s campaign has reacted by saying this doesn't take away what happened onjanuary saying this doesn't take away what happened on january the saying this doesn't take away what happened onjanuary the six, those events that led up to those rights that we saw. our team were on a call with biden�*s campaign team to get a sense of their reaction and many were saying, look this proves what biden was saying all along. they want to distract from biden�*s problems. they were saying that the message they are giving to their electorate is that democracy is at stake and this proves it in some respects because they say the justices have decided that the president is a king. crucially, bear in mind that if donald trump does

win back the white house, he will appoint ajustice win back the white house, he will appoint a justice department that will kill this case.— will kill this case. thank you very much for that. _ will kill this case. thank you very much for that. giving _ will kill this case. thank you very much for that. giving us - will kill this case. thank you very much for that. giving us an - will kill this case. thank you very much for that. giving us an idea | will kill this case. thank you very i much for that. giving us an idea of the significance and some of the reaction. let's get into the legal details now. joining me from new york is sarah krissoff, a former prosecutor for the southern district of new york and joe moreno, former us federal prosecutor, now serving as corporate attorney. first of all, from both of you, your headlines, reactions, top take is. sarah lets start with you. this decision reflects _ sarah lets start with you. this decision reflects what - sarah lets start with you. ti 3 decision reflects what happened in oral argument, decision reflects what happened in oralargument, i don't decision reflects what happened in oral argument, i don't think it was a huge surprise based on what we heard from the justices in oral argument. trump was arguing for this very grudging —— broad argument. trump was arguing for this

very grudging —— broad immunity. saying that all presidents are not immune. the court ended up somewhere in the middle, they have carved a path, saying that there are certain acts that are caught official acts for which a president would have absolute immunity, there are other acts on the edge of official acts that a president would have a presumption of immunity. there are unofficial acts for which a president does not have immunity. this was foreshadowed at the oral arguments, but obviously a big when win for trump. arguments, but obviously a big when winfortrump. i arguments, but obviously a big when win for trump-— win for trump. i agree with sarah. not a big surprise. _ win for trump. i agree with sarah. not a big surprise. this _ win for trump. i agree with sarah. not a big surprise. this is - not a big surprise. this is consistent with how the courts have treated _ consistent with how the courts have treated civil cases since the 1980s this is_ treated civil cases since the 1980s this is the — treated civil cases since the 1980s this is the middle ground that many of us _ this is the middle ground that many of us expected. i will share one thought. — of us expected. i will share one thought, the fact is that this is a

fair and — thought, the fact is that this is a fairand common thought, the fact is that this is a fair and common sense outcome, however— fair and common sense outcome, however i — fair and common sense outcome, however i will agree with one of your— however i will agree with one of your comments earlier that said this is not _ your comments earlier that said this is not really— your comments earlier that said this is not really an original list decision _ is not really an original list decision. this is a court that prides— decision. this is a court that prides itself on looking at the plaintext of laws, the constitution and the _ plaintext of laws, the constitution and the constitution does not speak to immunity of a president. they are pried _ to immunity of a president. they are pried some _ to immunity of a president. they are pried some separation of powers. i -et pried some separation of powers. i get the _ pried some separation of powers. i get the crisp criticism that they took— get the crisp criticism that they took this— get the crisp criticism that they took this out of thin air. i understand why the court will come under_ understand why the court will come under more — understand why the court will come under more criticism than it has in recent— under more criticism than it has in recent months.— under more criticism than it has in recent months. sarah, let's look at this issue of _ recent months. sarah, let's look at this issue of official, _ recent months. sarah, let's look at this issue of official, unofficial - this issue of official, unofficial and the third area. what are some of the challenges that you come up against trying to make these distinctions and definitions? it is

very muddy. _ distinctions and definitions? it 3 very muddy, there is no question. there are certain acts that the court said are unquestionably official acts, there is an absolute immunity, they can't be part of this case. there is a swathes of other activity that the court punted on, as they usually do, that is not their purview to get into that type of information. they are going to send it back to the lower court. the lower court will have to pass through all of these allegations in the indictment, and figure out whether they can be the basis of a criminal prosecution. there is a lot of work to come in the case. in order to see what can go forward and what can't. i order to see what can go forward and what can't. ., ., , ., ., what can't. i want to put forward some of the _ what can't. i want to put forward some of the dissenting - what can't. i want to put forward some of the dissenting voices. l some of the dissenting voices. justice sonia sotomayor said the president is now a king above the law. what do you make of that? is

hyperbolic, it's frustrating, i understand it. i see the speculation that out— understand it. i see the speculation that put the president can have people — that put the president can have people assassinated and misused the military, _ people assassinated and misused the military, and i imagine it would involve — military, and i imagine it would involve other actors along with that lawlessness. but i get the frustration. these are concerted thieves — frustration. these are concerted thieves who look to the constitution but there _ thieves who look to the constitution but there is— thieves who look to the constitution but there is nothing in the constitution about this. you would expect— constitution about this. you would expect these justices to say, we are not here _ expect these justices to say, we are not here to — expect these justices to say, we are not here to make things up, look at the language and if you want to change — the language and if you want to change it— the language and if you want to change it we are not ones to change it. change it we are not ones to change it that— change it we are not ones to change it that is— change it we are not ones to change it that is for— change it we are not ones to change it. that is for the legislator and the people. the fact that they built on the _ the people. the fact that they built on the earlier case when the 805 and said we _ on the earlier case when the 805 and said we are _ on the earlier case when the 805 and said we are going to go with this, i understand — said we are going to go with this, i understand the di55enter5 aggravation here, because this is the opposite of what this court portrays — the opposite of what this court portray5 it5elf the opposite of what this court portray5 itself as being in the

majority _ portrays itself as being in the ma'ori . ., portrays itself as being in the ma'ori . . ., ., majority. sarah, the same quote to ou, to majority. sarah, the same quote to you. to get — majority. sarah, the same quote to you. to get your— majority. sarah, the same quote to you, to get your thoughts - majority. sarah, the same quote to you, to get your thoughts on - majority. sarah, the same quote to you, to get your thoughts on it? i you, to get your thoughts on it? what these decisions show here is the real dissent among the justices. with the concurring opinions and dissenting opinions, we see there are very sharp lines that are drawn between the justices. the lines between the justices. the lines between their opinions and how the show that it might court should operate and their political lines between the justices. operate and their political lines between thejustices. it operate and their political lines between the justices. it is significant for that reason as well. what can we draw from that longer term, that people have expressed their concern that this political split, 6—3 and the re—liberal justices where the dissenters, that that in some way damages the credibility of the court? people should note — credibility of the court? people should note that _ credibility of the court? people should note that more - credibility of the court? people should note that more than - credibility of the court? people| should note that more than two thirds _ 5hould note that more than two thirds of— should note that more than two thirds of cases decided this term were _ thirds of cases decided this term were unanimous. they are often not

the headline grabbers. people are going _ the headline grabbers. people are going to _ the headline grabbers. people are going to see the justices in many of these _ going to see the justices in many of these cases— going to see the justices in many of these cases deciding not on the merits— these cases deciding not on the merits of— these cases deciding not on the merits of these cases or on their legal— merits of these cases or on their legal philosophies, but on who it benefits — legal philosophies, but on who it benefits i— legal philosophies, but on who it benefits. i hope that is not the case — benefits. i hope that is not the case i— benefits. i hope that is not the case. i think that is a perception that has— case. i think that is a perception that has been growing and so i think that has been growing and so i think that our— that has been growing and so i think that our political leaders in washington and members of the judiciary— washington and members of the judiciary need to work extra hard to make _ judiciary need to work extra hard to make it _ judiciary need to work extra hard to make it clear that they are not here to pick— make it clear that they are not here to pick winners and losers, they are here to _ to pick winners and losers, they are here to call— to pick winners and losers, they are here to call balls and strikes based on the _ here to call balls and strikes based on the law— here to call balls and strikes based on the law not on their personal preferences. on the law not on their personal preferences-— on the law not on their personal preferences. on the law not on their personal references. ~ . . , , , ., , on the law not on their personal references. . . . ,, , ., preferences. what happens next, as a result of this — preferences. what happens next, as a result of this ruling? _ preferences. what happens next, as a result of this ruling? the _ preferences. what happens next, as a result of this ruling? the case - preferences. what happens next, as a result of this ruling? the case has - result of this ruling? the case has to no result of this ruling? the case has to go back — result of this ruling? the case has to go back down _ result of this ruling? the case has to go back down to _ result of this ruling? the case has to go back down to the _ result of this ruling? the case has to go back down to the lower - to go back down to the lower court, they have to sort through all of these allegations in the indictment, what this evidence looks like and try to pass out what works official or unofficial acts and waffles in middle category of official acts on

the outer edge. the court gave some guidance of how to get through this, but there is a lot of work to be done. on the other really significant thing that came out of this ruling is that the court also said that some of these activities that are official acts and cannot be viewed... forwhich that are official acts and cannot be viewed... for which the president have immunity cannot be part of this trial. that information cannot be used in evidence at the trial. great to net used in evidence at the trial. great to get your — used in evidence at the trial. great to get your analysis _ used in evidence at the trial. great to get your analysis both _ used in evidence at the trial. great to get your analysis both of - used in evidence at the trial. great to get your analysis both of you, thank you for coming on the programme. around the world and across the uk, this is bbc news.

now, from looking ahead to the impact of that supreme court decision on the us election in november, let's turn to an election happening this week.

the first round of france's parliamentary elections has seen the far right make historic gains. marine le pen's far—right national rally came top, with more than a third of the vote, followed by a surge in support for the left—wing coalition — leaving the party of the current president, emmanuel macron, in third. andrew harding, has the latest from paris. paris, the day after, and for many here, a profound sense of shock. "it is like having a hangover," says sandrine, a legal assistant of yesterday's election results. "people are fed up with politics," says carolyn, "so they are turning to the extremes. it is like the plague". "when the far—right comes to power, it holds on to power," warns veronique. there are all talking about this one, marine le pen, whose party the national rally took the lead in sunday's vote. if the surname is familiar that's because her father, jean—marie le pen,

was a notorious far right politician, a racist and anti—semite. but his daughter has softened the national rally�*s image and platform, and last night won big across the nation. her party's populist anti—immigrant eurosceptic message, and it's 28—year—old candidate for the minister's job, finding broad appeal. formerly, it was more people that were workers in complicated economical situations, now you have also white—collars voting, you have women voting for national rally, you have young people. meanwhile, france's president is in trouble. no wonder it looked like emmanuel macron was trying to hide yesterday. his election gamble has backfired. his centrist party on track to lose heavily. so, what of plans to block the far right

from sweeping to victory? this afternoon, different parties began arriving at parliament aiming to forge a united front against the national rally. but the divisions are all too evident. the leader of the green party here, brought to tears of frustration during the debate. france is still digesting the shock of yesterday's election result. love it or loathe it, the national rally is now at the heart of france's political mainstream, more than that, it is the most powerful party across the country. but can it translate that into enough seats in parliament to win outright? if it can, france will be changed utterly. andrew harding, bbc news, paris. so what does it mean for the second round of voting on sunday, and france's role in europe? our correspondent mark lowen has more from paris. in the run off elections this sunday, there will be a very tight contest now in many of france's constituencies between the far right in many of them,

and a coalition candidate, because there is horse trading going on now, frantic talks in all those different constituencies for candidates to drop out and potentially unite behind one single candidate to try to block the far right from power. but is that possible? well, you know, we're talking about a centre and a left that is very, very disunited and and very, very split. so they will have to see whether they can unite behind one single candidate. now, the far right is, of course, the heir to the national front. it is no longer called that, but founded byjean—marie le pen, who once called the nazi concentration camps "a detail of history." it has been detoxified by his daughter, and now it, you know, capitalising on this desire in large swathes of france for law and order, for a hard line on immigration. they are potentially standing on the brink of power. but that has huge implications, not only here in france, but also for this country's position on the world stage. what would be france's position on continuing to support ukraine after the invasion by russia?

you know, the national rally has in the past been previously very, very supportive of moscow. it's not at the moment, but there are big question marks over that, france's relationship with europe and much, much more. so president macron called this election wanting "clarity", as he put it, but he has achieved quite the opposite. pierre mourier is a researcher on right—wing politics at the university of lyon — hejoins me from there now. thank you for coming on the programme. were getting into some of the detail injust programme. were getting into some of the detail in just a second, first of all, zooming out, big picture, how significant a moment is this in the history of france? it how significant a moment is this in the history of france?— the history of france? it came as a shock, but — the history of france? it came as a shock. but not _ the history of france? it came as a shock, but not as _ the history of france? it came as a shock, but not as a _ the history of france? it came as a shock, but not as a surprise - the history of france? it came as a i shock, but not as a surprise because we have seen for years the rise of the far right movement and fire up parties. the national rally did well in the last presidential election. this has been a decade and decades

of work going on. today we have just witnessed 10.6 million voters which is less than what was expected, but it cannot be underestimated. what is happening today is historic, next week there could be a far right government in france, something that has not happened since the 1940s. lets take a look at the chances of exactly that and what happens now with the second round of voting. big decisions for most other parties now about whether they drop out to make it less likely that the far right come into power. what is your sense about what parties will do? there come into power. what is your sense about what parties will do?— about what parties will do? there is about what parties will do? there is a strate: about what parties will do? there is a strategy of _ about what parties will do? there is a strategy of doing _ about what parties will do? there is a strategy of doing what _ about what parties will do? there is a strategy of doing what we - about what parties will do? there is a strategy of doing what we call- about what parties will do? there is a strategy of doing what we call the | a strategy of doing what we call the republican front, where candidates drop out to fight against the

national rally, the question is who? we had the former prime minister who said that he would fight both extremes, both the popularfront said that he would fight both extremes, both the popular front and the national rally. in my my rack on said we need to fight them at any cost. some candidates from the presidential party refused to drop out and that could lead to full control of the parliament by the national rally in a week. what control of the parliament by the national rally in a week. what is our national rally in a week. what is your sense _ national rally in a week. what is your sense of — national rally in a week. what is your sense of what _ national rally in a week. what is your sense of what will _ national rally in a week. what is your sense of what will actually l your sense of what will actually happen? i your sense of what will actually ha--en? .�* your sense of what will actually ha en? ., �* ., ., your sense of what will actually hauen? .,�* ., ., , ., your sense of what will actually hauen? ., happen? i don't want to place a bet on it but there _ happen? i don't want to place a bet on it but there is _ happen? i don't want to place a bet on it but there is a strong _ happen? i don't want to place a bet on it but there is a strong chance i on it but there is a strong chance that there is a full majority for the national rally next week. with defectors from french republicans who dealt with them and that would be to draw a parallel with the american situation, that would be the same situation with the republican party where you have both moderates and trunk supporters in

the same party, in the same groups, voting on the same laws. lots the same party, in the same groups, voting on the same laws.— voting on the same laws. lots of --eole voting on the same laws. lots of people still— voting on the same laws. lots of people still asking _ voting on the same laws. lots of people still asking the _ voting on the same laws. lots of people still asking the question | people still asking the question about why macron called this election. ~ , .. , about why macron called this election. ~ , , ., election. well because of timing. he laced a election. well because of timing. he placed a dangerous _ election. well because of timing. he placed a dangerous bet. _ election. well because of timing. he placed a dangerous bet. he - election. well because of timing. he placed a dangerous bet. he bet - election. well because of timing. he placed a dangerous bet. he bet that| placed a dangerous bet. he bet that in three weeks the left wouldn't have the time to organise themselves, that he would have time to expose the vacuity of the platform of the national rally in less than three weeks. and then to appearas less than three weeks. and then to appear as the saviour of france and get a full majority in the parliament. he failed. yesterday some close adviser to the president calling him nero watching rome burn. he completely failed and he paved the way to a far right government next week. we the way to a far right government next week-— the way to a far right government next week. ~ . ., ,, ., ,., next week. we have talked about the far ri . ht next week. we have talked about the far right coming _ next week. we have talked about the far right coming first _ next week. we have talked about the far right coming first in _ next week. we have talked about the far right coming first in the _ next week. we have talked about the

far right coming first in the first - far right coming first in the first round and macron cross alliance in third. we haven't spoken about second place, surge in support for the left—wing coalition. what is your assessment? this the left-wing coalition. what is your assessment?— the left-wing coalition. what is your assessment? this is the end of a cle in your assessment? this is the end of a cycle in french _ your assessment? this is the end of a cycle in french politics, _ your assessment? this is the end of a cycle in french politics, a - a cycle in french politics, a cycle that started in 2017. we had three blocks since 2017, where you had left—wing parties, a centrist, liberal party with macron, and the right wing, the big tent. now we are switching back to two parties, right—wing, left—wing. even in voting dynamics we are returning back to the old dynamics of east— west, urban— rural differences. that's what we are seeing with yesterday's vote. lode that's what we are seeing with yesterday's vote.—

that's what we are seeing with yesterday's vote. we will have full covera . e yesterday's vote. we will have full coverage of _ yesterday's vote. we will have full coverage of the _ yesterday's vote. we will have full coverage of the second _ yesterday's vote. we will have full coverage of the second round - yesterday's vote. we will have full coverage of the second round of i coverage of the second round of voting. thank you very much for coming on a programme.- voting. thank you very much for coming on a programme. israel's prime minister benjamin netanyahu has said that israel is almost finished eliminating hamas' military capabilities in the gaza strip. the statement comes almost 9 months since the october 7 hamas attack on israel, killing about 1,200 people and taking hundreds hostage. mr netanyahu vowed to "crush and destroy hamas", and in the months since, more than 35,000 people, many of them women and children, have been killed in gaza. here is some of his statement. translation: i returned yesterday l from a tour of the gaza division. l i saw great achievements of fighting that is being carried out in rafah. we are nearing the end of the elimination phase of hamas's terrorist army. there will be a continuation of hitting its remnants. i was also very impressed by the achievements above ground, underground by the fighting spirit of the commanders. with this spirit, we will

achieve all our goals. the israeli army on monday issued a new evacuation order for parts of khan yunis and rafah in southern gaza, with witnesses reporting that many were fleeing. hundreds of thousands had already left rafah ahead of and during a ground offensive launched by israeli troops on the southernmost city since early may. the warning made on social media and in an official statement, came hours after israel said 20 "projectiles" were fired into israel from the khan yunis region. the idf said it was the largest attack out of gaza in months. to stay with us. plenty more to come. i will be back with the headline shortly and then with news of the sport. lots of sport, wimbledon,, the tour de france. i am

lewis vaughanjones. this is bbc news. hello there. we've seen a good deal of cloud heading our way today, bringing with it some rain here and there as well. and, really, through the rest of this week, it's very changeable. not particularly what we'd expect at this time of the year — cloud, some rain at times, mainly in the west, a cooler breeze keeping temperatures below average as well. and it's notjust on the cooler side here in the uk. you can see from the temperature anomaly map, we've got the cooler blues across many parts of europe. the hotter weather is more across eastern areas and temperatures may build a bit across iberia. but our weather is going to be coming in from the atlantic, which is why western areas will see most of the rain. we've had this band of cloud here on this weather front. it's been taking some rain eastwards today, mainly affecting the northern half of the uk. that weather front will be weakening overnight tonight, taking some thicker cloud, more across eastern and for a while southern parts of england, with a little rain here and there but not very much. clearer skies will follow towards the north—west,

in scotland and northern ireland, and here, we could see temperatures perhaps in rural areas as low as seven or eight degrees. temperatures will be higher where we've got that cloud across eastern parts of england. in the morning, it could still produce a little light rain or drizzle here and there. elsewhere, there'll be some sunshine for a while, cloud will bubble up. we'll see more showers breaking out across the northern half of the uk, perhaps merging into longer spells of rain in the afternoon in western scotland and later into northern ireland. and that will limit the temperatures here to around about 16 degrees, but could make 20 again across southern england and south wales. and it shouldn't feel too bad here. but we've got more weather systems coming in from the atlantic overnight and into wednesday, stronger winds behind that as well. now, that's going to leave us with quite a messy picture, i think, on wednesday — a lot of cloud, some rain from time to time, nothing particularly heavy or prolonged. and for scotland and northern ireland, it'll be followed by some sunshine and some showers as well. and again, those temperatures reaching 16, 17, possibly 18 degrees.

but that's a little below average, certainly for this time of the year. low pressure running to the north of the uk will bring some stronger winds on thursday. the next system may well bring some rain into england and wales, the southern half of the uk. the position of that rain could change, but essentially, through the week, it's still rather mixed weather. temperatures are disappointing for the time of year. there'll be some sunshine in between the cloud and the rain.

hello, i'm lewis vaughanjones. you're watching the context on bbc news. hurricane beryl threatens the caribbean islands, as it strengthens to category four and is heading for grenada. sport and for a full round—up, from the bbc sport centre, here's hugh ferris. hello from the bbc sport centre. it took an own goal in the 85th minute, but france remain on course at euro 202a. they beat belgium in dusseldorf to reach the quarter finals. both teams had a host of chances to score before the late winner, but it wasn't until randal kolo muani's shot was deflected into the net by jan vertonghen that france broke the deadlock. they still haven't technically scored a goalfrom open play yet in the tournament, but they're through to the last eight, while belgium's famed golden generation fail to win

a trophy again.