>> 30 minutes into the u.s. trading day on this monday, july 1, care are the top stories we are following. the second half starts with equity markets higher by double digits this year. can corporate earnings and fed rate cuts keep the party going? the supreme court is set to rule on donald trump's claim that he is immune from criminal charges over attempts to overturn the 2020 election. we will bring you that decision as soon as it arrives. merger monday. m&a volume remains muted. we will discuss with the head of less corporate m&a at brush fields.

katie: i am katie greifeld in new york. welcome to "bloomberg markets." so far, the second half is off to a good start looking at the s&p 500, currently higher by .2%. big tech a different story. the nasdaq 100 a little lower. look at the bond market, the 10 year treasury yield has backed up the past couple of days, up 10 basis point friday, now up another three basis points. we are back above 440 as we continue to watch the economic data roll out. let's get to mike mckee for the latest. mike: the narrative has been the economy is slowing. the ism numbers suggests that narrative is still in place. we get a reading down from 48.7 in may.

other than a brief peak above 50 in march of this year, you have to go back to september of 2022 before you get an extended period above 50. the slowdown in manufacturing continues. that is what you see in the sub indexes. new orders are up but still under 50. production slips a bit, 48.5%. employment slips to 49.3%. men tories are lower. -- inventories are lower. prices down from 57.0. that would suggest more room for the fed in terms of when it might want to lower rates and suggests perhaps we will see lower numbers in the cpi next week. katie: we do have a jobs report on friday. a little bit of a weird week the way the schedule worked out with

the july 4 holiday. what are we expecting to see? mike: we are expecting to see a lot of traders on the beach. but the junior traders they leave behind are expecting 188,000 jobs. that may change during the week as we get more labor market data. an unchanged for percent on employment rate. this will fall into the same category as ism. does it keep the narrative going of a slowing economy but not falling off a clip? if we get a big jump in unemployment, that will worry the fed. friday is going to be an important day whether you are in the office or looking in from the hamptons or the jersey shore or something like that. katie: i will not be in the office but i will be following the job report figures. thank you so much. we are waiting for trump immunity ruling from the supreme court. we do have a decision coming

from the top court. they will allow the swipe fee challenge to go ahead. that is a blow to regulators. it lets the old rules be challenged. that is the first of several decisions we are expecting from the supreme court this morning. we will bring you those as soon as we have them. let's turn back to the markets. we are joined by megan horneman. i want to bring you a very boring stat from our producer. if you look at the s&p 500, it is on average .3% move each day in june. that is the quietest month by that measure since the pandemic started. when you think of the lack of volatility, is that just a summer slump or does that seem like a coiled spring to you? >> i think it has more to do with the fact the markets do not really know what to expect from the federal reserve.

it has been a very quiet month. there are not big trades being put on. there is still so much uncertainty on when the fed will be able to cut interest rates. if you look at the fixed income market, that has been stuck in a range as well. i think you are looking at investors and market participants that are not sure what direction the fed will be able to do and what the economy is doing. katie: where do you stand on all of that? a lot of crosscurrents. we are in the middle of summer. liquidity is a little bit wanting. how are you positioned? >> we are a little bit cautious about the economy. that has been our bigger concern because we do think you are seeing the economy slow pretty quickly. the consumer has been our biggest concern all year. eventually, the consumer would have to start slowing spending. it was not sustainable with rates over 20% for credit cards.

on the others, we are concerned about inflation being stickier than the fed wants or investors want and how they are pricing the market. that gives the fed less flexibility than the hefty valuations are showing. we will be looking at our positions rebalancing where necessary with growth areas that have run up so much and sitting with extra cash on the sidelines. we think volatility will pick up any second half of the year as the economy continues to slow and we look at what the fed will be able to do. that will present some opportunities for the long run. katie: i want to talk more about what cautious positioning looks like. it sounds like cash is your friend here. maybe you aren't rebalancing out of growth areas -- maybe you are rebalancing out of growth areas. when you think about quality, for a lot of people that means tech. >> from a fixed income

perspective, here is the one thing we have concerns about. within treasuries, there is so much supply. the budget office came out with new projections for issuance. supply is getting scary. this will eventually way on interest rates. people are looking at tech as a defensive. it is not so defensive when you see volatility in the treasury market. tech is off today because yields are higher. there is a risk on the long end of the treasury curve so we are more defensive there. from the equity side, we do not like tech. we think valuations are too elevated. it has priced into much momentum for ai. when we say defensive and equity markets, think about value sectors over the cyclical growth sectors. katie: when you say you do not like tech, does that mean you

are neutral, underweight? to your point, valuations are quite elevated. it almost feels too big to ignore. >> if you look at our positioning, where overweight value overgrowth. naturally, we will be slightly underweight the s&p 500 on a technology basis. when you have a value overgrowth tilt, you will be underweight technology. i think some of the frenzy around ai is going to tap out. we have seen that happen. i think you will see unless we get earnings continue to validate this ai boom, you will see some volatility in tech names. they have run up too far, too fast. katie: what would make you reassess your thinking on tech? do you need some sort of correction? do you need something more substantial on the narrative, fundamental side? >> i think it is a valuation correction. i do not think you should completely abandon it forever. i think there will be

opportunities where valuations will get more realistic. do not forget that earnings estimates for this year and next year have not been downgraded. you are talking about the economy slowing more than some anticipated. but you have not seen that in the earnings revisions. if we get earnings revisions downward, we get valuations more realistic, that is when we will look to enter into tech. katie: sit tight a couple of minutes. we will come back with you after the break. let's look at what is moving under markets right now with simone foxman. kicking off with m&a news. >> this is boeing's deal for spirit aerosystems. all of this is to address manufacturing defects, especially after the piece of fuselage blew off the plane in january. the deal will be worth 4.7 billion dollars, all cash transaction. 30% premiums on the february 29

christ. -- price. bloomberg news reportedly yesterday the doj is going to charge the company with criminal fraud for violating the deferred prosecution agreement. the company still has to decide whether they will plead guilty or go to trial. none of this is great for boeing. shares are up 2.6% this morning. katie: interesting contrast. bone c-shares having a great monday -- boeing shares having a great monday. roaring kitty appears. >> we saw crisis spiking premarket but down 4%. it started with a tweet from keith gill, or a post on x of a cartoon of a dog. that raised potential interest that roaring kitty may be taking

a stake in chewy or petco. it turns out it is in chewy. 9 million shares, roughly $250 million or 6.6% of the outstanding. one interesting comment steve made his this is a filing. this is not just tweets and cryptic memes. the best part of this story is filing boxes in the disclosure filing included "i am a cat" or "i am not a cap." -- cat." katie: interesting details on keith gill. you see the volatility making its way through chewy shares. tell us about birkenstock. >> this has been one of the most highly traded stocks this morning. shares fell 11.5% in part because insiders, especially the private equity owner, filed to share cells.

now ubs -- to sell shares. now ubs says it is going better than he anticipated. the market sees some overhangs around the growth the barbie movie generated. he thinks there are more important things to focus on. he says a price target of $85 per share. citi has a buy rating at $65 a share that was reinstated. less excitement but still a little bit of positivity for a name that has been on a good run lately. 13.3% gains year to date. katie: not bad on a monday, another 1.5% today. thank you so much. the supreme court is set to release the final opinions of this term. we will preview the trump immunity decision next. this is bloomberg. ♪

katie: we are awaiting the supreme court ruling on former president donald trump's claim he is immune on charges to overturn the election. the high court dealing a blow to the authority of federal agencies. joining us from washington is kailey leinz. when it comes to the immunity decision, it seems like the heart of the matter is whether donald trump was acting as president or a private citizen. kailey: that is exactly right. it comes down to what qualifies as an official act versus a private act. donald trump and his team argued

he should be immune from prosecution for everything that took place while he was president. the justices did seem skeptical of the argument, the idea it would give the president blanket authority to do whatever he or she would like. however, they also expressed skepticism around the idea they should entirely throw away donald trump's argument, teasing the idea they may send it back to a lower court to divvy up what is an official versus private act, potentially drawn the process out further. i would remind you the appeals court earlier rejected donald trump's claim. the supreme court decided to take it up. they heard arguments in april. here they are on the last day of the term still awaiting the opinion from the court. they have made this process quite lengthy. whether or not donald trump goes to trial in the case related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, it may not be able to do so by november depending on

how the justices ruled today. timing is everything. katie: the window is very narrow. we are having this conversation on july 1. the term being extended. how rare is it to see the term go into july? kailey: it is quite rare. we have not seen this since the covid era where we also saw the court take the term into july. it is only one day past the last day of june which is the traditional deadline. still, it is unusual. it is not just the immunity case we had to wait on until the first day of july. we are still waiting on the opinion on social media rules in texas and florida, whether they can censor or monitor content on their platform based on state laws or if there is some violation of free speech. they also ruled in the swipe case strolling into question when government regulation could be challenged. the one with the greatest political ramifications for

donald trump and the presidency going well into the future is this immunity case which is why it is highly consequential. katie: historic day, historic ruling indeed. thanks to kailey leinz. a good reminder we are waiting on the decisions. we have a couple that have already landed. we will bring you that coverage as we get it. let's get back to megan horneman. when you think about political risks, not just election risks, how are you thinking about that through the lens of putting together a portfolio? >> political risk is just one of many risk that we see in portfolios right now. the political risk goes into the election but also, what is each candidate going to focus on in 2025? that can have an impact on portfolios. are we talking about tariffs?

inflation? these are things you have to look at. at the end of the day, politics is just one thing. it can be a source of volatility for many different reasons. we are focusing on fundamentals, valuations. whether you look at your portfolio in a short time or a long time like you should, these political pendulums tend to swing in all economic cycles. we would rather look at the underlying fundamentals of the economy, within the sectors, the companies, and the evaluation. is the downside and upside risk being balanced? katie: there was an interesting note out from the likes of morgan stanley saying if we get another trump presidency, maybe we could see a steeper yield curve. we see rate cuts getting pulled forward. the long end of the curve may be pressured hire from some tariff policies. is it time to be thinking in

that way? is that a fruitful exercise to go through thinking of the trump trade or the biden trade? >> it does not hurt to look at that. clients have those questions a lot, what is my portfolio going to look like? at the end of the day, it is not just to sense in the presidential seat but what congress looks like too. these are things we have to tackle over the next year or so. whether there are tax cuts or increases, it is too early to discuss. at the end of the day, the one thing on the table that needs to be addressed is the budget deficit. that can put pressure on the long end of the yield curve. whether that is donald trump in office or president biden, it does not matter because looking at the long end of the treasury curve there is so much supply that we could see yields rise higher. katie: one of the narratives is that markets like gridlock.

does that logic still apply in this situation? >> i think so. markets typically do like gridlock. there is no chance for major surprises when you have gridlock. i think that is good for the markets over the long run. katie: let's look outside the u.s. because we have elections elsewhere in the world. take a look at what is going on in france right now. when you think about volatility in elections outside the u.s., how much of that matters when you are thinking about the u.s. versus the rest of the world, and where do you fall? >> i think when you look at what is going on in france, that is having a much bigger impact on their markets, their equity markets, their bond markets. you're seeing that spread between german bunds widen out in recent weeks. you cannot ignore it. in an overall diversified portfolio, you should have international equities. when you are well diversified,

over the long run, these things should smooth themselves out and we will get back to how you should value companies. it is not just the political environment. katie: when you look across everything we have been talking about over the past 20 minutes, the economy, the federal reserve, the global picture as well, what is the biggest risk? >> i think it is inflation. i think inflation is stickier than the fed would like it to be. it is one thing that is easy to re-accelerate if the fed or global central banks get to rubbish -- too dovish. that is the biggest risk we see. katie: our thanks to megan horneman. we do have more news from the supreme court. the decision kailey was talking about on state social media laws, particularly when it comes to texas and florida, the supreme court issuing a mixed decision on the state social media laws. that will send it back to the lower courts.

we will continue to follow that one as we await the big decision. that is the ruling on trump's immunity. we will continue to follow that. we will take a look at the companies making the most social buzz today next. this is bloomberg. ♪

when you automate sales tax with avalara, you don't have to worry about things like changing tax rates or filing returns. avalarahhh ahhh

katie: it is time for social climbers, a look at the stocks making waves on social media this morning. they keep hoping cheaper kicks will give it a leg up. they are said to be rolling out a new of sneakers that cost $100 or less. nike got trampled last week after a dismal forecast. air france is warning the summer will hurt its bottom line. the airline says passengers are

avoiding paris in the summer to avoid possible disruptions and high prices during the games. the french are said to be postponing their own holidays to avoid travel chaos. finally, kate spade is teaming up with heinz ketchup on a limited edition collection of clothing and accessories. the partnership will include tote bags made to look like ketchup packages. it is condiment couture at its finest. you can follow all of it on the bloomberg tournament -- bloomberg terminal. it is a green day but quiet, just like june was. the s&p 500 pretty much unchanged. same thing with the nasdaq 100. the selloff in treasuries is continuing. coming up, the supreme court is set to rule on trump immunity. we will speak to the stetson university law professor next. this is bloomberg. ♪

how am i going to find a doctor when i'm hallucinating? what about zocdoc? so many options. yeah, and dr. xichun even takes your sketchy insurance. xi-chun, xi-chun, xi-chun! you've got more options than you know. book now.

- if i told you something extends your life span, improves your sleep, makes you more empathetic, and reduces stress and cognitive decline, you would think it was a miracle drug. but i'm talking about reading. reading every day does all those things and more, which is why i started my book club, read with jenna. so start a reading streak, even if it's just a few minutes every day, on the way to work, your lunch break, before you go to bed. every little bit helps. the more you know. ow! uh oh. you, ok? no... i mean yeah. -just hit my melon. -yikes! should we see a doctor? i can't tell a doctor i slipped on a toy.

i'm a triathlete! i had a concussion. most happen doing ordinary things. sometimes the tough thing to do is to get help to prevent serious damage. i like your sensitive side. don't mess with your melon. if you hit it, get it checked. backs trump on immunity. the heart of the case was whether donald trump is immune from criminal charges attempts to overturn the 2020 election. we are awaiting details but we have learned the supreme court partially backs trump on immunity. this is a case with big consequences. it is historic in nature. what we know right now is the supreme court is partially backing trump's claims when it comes to immunity. that as president, he is immune from criminal charges that stem from the attempt to overturn the 2020 election. the big question was whether

he was acting as a president or private citizen in those events. let's get more insight into this historic supreme court ruling with kailey leinz joining us from washington. what do we know so far? kailey: the opinion has just come down. you are exactly right. this is a partial victory for former president trump. the court ruling under the constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of presidential power entitles a former president to immunity acting with his credential authority. it says he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all official acts. thhis is the key. it goes on to say there is no immunity for unofficial acts. this was really the question. what constitutes an official act in the presidency versus the private act? what was donald trump doing as president versus a presidential candidate?

this is what justices were questioning in the arguments in april. it could have great consequence for the prosecution of donald trump in the case brought against him in washington by special counsel jack smith. he is charged with four separate counts, two complicated by the supreme court decision last week around what complicated -- constitutes obstruction. because he has been charged with attempting to obstruct unofficial proceeding. the court is willing -- ruling donald trump is at least partially immune for official actions. it will be up to the courts to sort through what is official and unofficial. this means this is going to delay likely the case going to trial as we get closer to the election in november. joining me now with more is david westin. you also clerk at the supreme court. this is a highly consequential ruling not only for former

president trump but all presidents after him. david: on the one hand, former president trump wanted immunity and for the case to be over. that will not happen pretty case will continue. he does have immunity for official acts. that will have to be decided as a matter of fact as well as law. president trump's lawyer said that should probably go back to the district court. it is a heyday for the lawyers again. kailey: the question will be to what extent this can be sorted out in the process of a trial. can the delineation of what is an official act versus a private act be worked out within the context of it, or does that have to be sorted before the trial can begin? david: i am speculating.

normally the way this would work as you have pretrial motions before the district court. there may be fact-finding. there may be some discovery about what was going on behind the scenes. there will be arguments and the court will make a ruling as to what was official and what was not official. they will go forward, presumably if she find some things unofficial and not subject to immunity, you go ahead with the trial. that could be subject to review on appeal. kailey: it would just extend this process even longer. that is also what is so influential about this decision. not on the precedent it sets for the highest office in the country but it is coming in the context of the election cycle in which the defendant in question is running for president to take the oval office once more. we know the arguments several

months ago. the court has not only decided to hand it back down to courts prolonging the process, but did so knowing that this likely would mean this does not go to trial before the election. david: the supreme court tries to pride itself in not being political. likely federal reserve boards. we do not pay attention to it. we just take them as it comes. it is possible he would become president again. if that happens, he would have the authority to stop the prosecution from going forward. that is a key element given how much delay is likely to happen. kailey: absolutely. i am looking through the opinion to get to the dissent, one of which is authored with justice sotomayor.

they say it makes a mockery of the principal foundational to our system of government that no man is above the law. that is what the court was deciding, whether in some cases when acting in an official capacity the president is above the law. they would call it that is one way to characterize it. if i can present the argument on the others presented to the supreme court, it is if you allow former presidents to be indicted for anything they did in office, it will curtail the authority of the current president to exercise discretion. that is why we have immunity for police officers for example so they are not limited in how they exercise discretion. certainly, we want no person to be above the law, including the president. that was decided with the nixon tapes. on the other hand, you have to consider, could you be curtailing the ability of a president to exercise his

discretion and do what he should be doing in his job? kailey: i'm glad you brought up the nixon tapes, the watergate case. i believe it only took the supreme court a matter of weeks to come down with an opinion, not months as in this case. i am pleased to say a former watergate prosecutor is joining us now. ackerman is with us -- nick ackerman is with us. i know you have only had a few minutes, but your initial reaction? >> i think the bottom line is this decision is meaningless in a lot of ways. none of the acts alleged in the indictment are official acts of the president of the united states. he is alleged to get involved in the presidential elections to try to overturn it, trying to do things that have nothing to do with his powers under the u.s. constitution.

coming up with fake electors to put before congress, trying to get his vice president to throw the election to him by using phony electors, trying to put the attorney general in the position to send out a fraudulent letter to battleground states telling them there was fraud in the election when there was not, that he was spreading the big lie that there was fraud in the. none of this is unofficial act of the president of the united states. filing false statements with the federal court about election fraud is not an official act of the president. what irks me about this opinion is you can just look at the indictment and understand everything alleged has nothing to do with his official acts. this is no different from what presidential nixon did in watergate when he directed his aides to call the cia to call

the fbi to tell them to stop the watergate investigation. it was official he was having his aides do this, but this is not something under his authority as president to undermine the justice system. it is not donald trump's authority as president to try and undermine a president trump -- a presidential election and the peaceful transfer of power. kailey: as we consider the peaceful transfer of power question, keeping in mind this goes back to actions taken around efforts to overturn the 2020 election and the events of january 6, 2021, it is worth keeping in mind we got another consequential opinion from the court last week on the january 6 defendants limiting the use of the enron doctrine, what could be obstruction of an official proceeding.

they decided with the defendant that has potential implications for donald trump. how should we consider that opinion together with the opinion today and what it will mean for the case moving forward? >> a couple of things. first, the obstruction count the supreme court dealt with last week will not in any way undermine the allegations against donald trump. the court found, and i think this was off base, is because it was passed after the enron scandal and in response to the enron scandal, it has to do with falsifying evidence. in this indictment against donald trump with respect to the january 6 matter, it does allege he came up with phony documents, namely the documentation underpinning the phony electors. in a sense, the decision last week is not going to have any impact on this case against

donald trump. secondly, it seems to me that what the court did, for a supreme court that has been emphasizing history and what has gone on in the past, what they completely overlooked and what justice ferris decided in her dissent was there was a history with the initial statute that was the only statute out there during watergate. there were holes in the statute, one of which was obstruction of congress. that is what the statute was intended to cover. in a way, it was a bad decision but it will not affect the indictment against donald trump. david: i want to come back to what you said and agree with part of it and question part of it. you are right that there are

certain indictments that even trump's counsel conceded. at the same time, i have only gotten a chance to read the head notes. the supreme court specifically went through and said those things are official acts alleged in the indictment. there were others they said were more troublesome. they did go through the indictment and drew a difference between those two. they found some things official. do you think chief justice roberts was wrong? >> i do not see how he could possibly be right based on the allegations in the indictment. everything donald trump did was getting himself involved in trying to undermine the election. for example, in georgia, he has no constitutional authority to do anything in georgia with respect to their election in terms of coming up with who their electors will be. that is not the job of the president. being involved in his own

election is a very personal matter. none of this to get the right to do except file various court actions, all of which he lost, some 60-some port actions he lost. i do not see how based on this indictment somebody cannot go through and say each of these was a personal matter, all intended to benefit donald trump, to undermine the election knowingly and willfully and he knew it was a big lie straight through. i do not see this will be a difficult matter for the judge to look at and decide all of these matters alleged in the indictment are not official acts. kailey: do you think the judge can do that in the context of a trial already underway? will everything need to be complete before she can set a trial date, keeping in mind machines the parties they will

have three months to prepare for trial? >> i have not read the opinion so i do not know what the supreme court has directed her to do. the only way to do this is to take in the evidence, get proffers on the evidence from the government, and make a determination on the actual evidence. an is just allegations. what you really need is some indication of what the evidence is. i think you are right. in some ways, you cannot make a decision on this until you put that evidence out there or at least get a proffer from the government as to what is backing up that evidence. i think this gets complicated. on the other hand, i have not read that opinion so i am not sure what the supreme court expects under these circumstances. in any case was an indictment, you only have allegations -- in

any case with an indictment, you only have allegations. david: i think what you are saying is you do not disagree with the principles the supreme court laid out, you just think it is an easy case and it will not take them long in district court to resolve it. >> it is a real easy case. what really bothers me is what they have done is they have played into donald trump's ploy of delay, delay, delay. there was no reason for the supreme court to listen and decide this in the first case. they could have done this on the evidentiary record before judge chutkan. then you would have had real facts to rule on. here, an indictment is not evidence. it is simply a listing of allegations. the idea that somehow you have to get that evidence out before you even put it before a jury, for even put it out so the defense gets a second crack at

the evidence when it goes to the jury is contrary to how our system works. david: is there any way judge chutkan can get this resolved quickly? >> i don't see it. i know she said three months. this is a simple case, one defendant. i know judges in the southern district of new york that would have put this to trial in 30 days. i think it is ready to go to trial. it is a question of how quickly this issue about official acts can be decided. to me, it is a no-brainer. just read the indictment. the government can backup those allegations with very specific evidence, much of which has already been presented to the public in the january 6 committee hearings. kailey: fair point. we are viewing this through the lens of what the implications are for donald trump who has posted that this is a big win for our constitution and

democracy, proud to be an american. this goes well beyond just donald trump. the court's finding under the system of separated powers, and i'm reading from the opinion drafted by chief justice robert s, the president may not be prosecuted for exercising core constitutional powers. what does this mean for how that may look different going forward? >> i do not think it makes a difference at all. we have only had this problem arise twice in our history, with richard nixon and now donald trump. even other scandals in the past like the teapot dome scandal, the president was not involved, it was one of his cabinet members. this is such a rare instance for any kind of president to be accused of committing a crime. this is extremely rare. every single president we have

had has been aboveboard, never involved in criminal activity like these two presidents. there was no reason to have this opinion and delay the case until after the election. that is what may have happened. i have not read the opinion, and it may be that judge chutkan can cut through this quickly, but it is outrageous so much time has gone by simply to state a principal that a president who is exercising his normal constitutional powers cannot be prosecuted for a crime. there is nothing extraordinary about that principal or rule. david: i wonder, is there anything special counsel could have done to bring this case more narrowly to avoid this problem? >> i do not see it. everything they had in here essentially alleged an overall

plan, starting with the big lie that trump lost the election, that there was fraud in the election, that dead people voted, etc. all of that surrounded the different acts donald trump took. they are all alleged in the indictment. what the special counsel did do was try to get this to the supreme court immediately bypassing the circuit court, just like we did in the watergate case with the tapes argument which the supreme court did accept. the whole thing feels a lot more political than it did in 1974 when you had members of the supreme court appointed by richard nixon who came down on the side of the special counsel and against richard nixon. here, the feel is the supreme court justices appointed by trump did everything they could to buy into his delay strategy. kailey: of course, it was the

six conservative justices that ruled this way. the three liberal justices dissented. i read earlier from the dissent drafted by sonia sotomayor who reads at the end, never before has a president had reason to believe he would be immune from criminal prosecution if used the trappings of his office to violate criminal law. she ends with "with fear for our democracy, i dissent." how does this make you feel about the state of american democracy and the three branches of government? >> not great. i am not feeling good about the supreme court. between what we know about two of those members who should have recused themselves on this decision, and how this came out and how this was dragged out, i really not feeling good about the state of our democracy compared to what happened in 1974 with a supreme court appointed mainly by republican

presidents. kailey: nick akerman, former watergate prosecutor, great to get your perspective on this historic day in which the supreme court has said donald trump does have partial immunity for official acts, effectively delaying his trial in washington. david westin joining me as we break this historic news. quite a day with a precedent set for many presidents to come. katie greifeld, we will send it back to you. katie: thank you so much for that coverage. kailey leinz is "bloomberg balance of power" co-host in washington. there is much more at noon eastern time. this is bloomberg. ♪

say aloha to olukai golf. waterproof leather. breathable fabrics. spikeless traction. the most comfortable golf shoe in the game. grab your pair today at olukai.com. are still calling each other rock stars. you're a rock star. we're all rock stars. oooo look look at my data driven insights, i'm a rock star. great job putting finance and hr on one platform with workday. thank you! guys, can you keep it down. i'm working. you people are (guitar noises). hand over the air guitar.

i've got another one.

>> it is the countdown to the market open as we bring you the first trade across europe. ♪ katie: we are digesting the decision from the high court. the u.s. supreme court ruling donald trump has some immunity from criminal charges for trying to reverse the 2020 election results. we are keeping an eye on the

markets as well on the first trading day of the second half. let's get some context with abigail doolittle. aig we are starting off with a bearish or mixed tone. you can see the nasdaq 100. futures overnight had been higher. right around the time of the ism that was a little below expectations, we have seen a bit of a plunge which was ironic that yields went higher as the eco-data came in light. we are looking at a .3% decline. at the lows, down more than that. some intraday volatility. as for the s&p 500, the last time i looked at was higher but now down .2%. one of the culprits is nvidia, down 1.6%, firmly in correction territory. a lot of this having to do with the perception may be far, too

fast, take some chips off the table. the stock had been up 180% year to date based on phenomenal guides around ai. this is the true culprit in terms of stocks been pressured i would guess. we have yields going higher. the 10-year yield up eight basis points close to 450. that is helping out the bloomberg dollar index. because nvidia is the third biggest weighting, here is a three month chart. here is the 100-day moving average. on the last quarter, it gapped higher. now we are looking at a possible pattern. if below 108, we are likely to see the gap fill to take it closer to the 100-day moving average. let's call it 90 or so.

that could be an interesting move potentially during the month of july earnings and the fed. tesla up 5% ahead of the ev delivery for the second quarter announcement tomorrow. coinbase higher with bitcoin up 3%. meta, there are e.u. concerns, down 1.7%. chewy premarket up more than 30% on the disclosure of the 6.6% passive state by keith gill, also known as bring kitty. but now shares have reversed and are down about 3.9%. katie: abigail doolittle, thank you so much. a lot of movement under the surface, even though it seems the indexes are boring right now, that has been the story of the past several months as well. the ceo joins bloomberg at 11:30. that does it for "bloomberg markets." i am katie greifeld and this is bloomberg.

♪ creates a logo, website, even social posts... in minutes! -how? -a.i. (impressed) ay i like it! who wants to come see the future?! get your business online in minutes with godaddy airo how am i going to find a doctor when i'm hallucinating? what about zocdoc? so many options. yeah, and dr. xichun even takes your sketchy insurance. xi-chun, xi-chun, xi-chun! you've got more options than you know. book now. want to save on some of the biggest names in streaming on yo the network made for streaming? x marks the spot. now you can add the new xfinity streamsaver™ that includes netflix, peacock, and apple tv+.

that's xfinity streamsaver™ for just $15 a month. all your favorites. all in one place. only from xfinity. for more watching and less spending... x marks the spot. do it all on the network made for streaming, and bring on the good stuff.

>> from the heart of where innovation, money, and power collide, this is bloomberg technology with caroline hyde and ed ludlow. caroline: i'm caroline hyde. ed: i'm ed ludlow in san francisco. this is bloomberg technology. caroline: we bring you the latest in markets as nvidia struggles. we will talk macro and micro. ed: the latest from washington as the supreme court sends social media laws back to lower court. caroline: qualcomm is the new sponsorship on the front of shirt for manchester united.