approval from americans around the country when trump came down the escalator people were not even talking about our border wall except a small minority like our organization. we did a documentary on the board in 2014. most people were not talking about the border in that manner and 2016. nowk we have the majority of americans think it should be secure. the death of lakin riley i heara from mom sourcing weights century city? i didn't knoxists in college towns of century city's? they are looking at these differently than they did before. a lot of that is a huge striking contrast people

who are more and a governing capacity. but there is a striking contrast in the two and now those two are going to be head rather than income but in the theoretical person who may or may not do a better job. cofounder find out more about chief of party patriots.org thank you for joining us today. >> thank you for having me. with the wall street journal. welcome to the program. >> what specific legal questions of the supreme court rule on it yesterday? >> is a number of arguments that donald trump raised in his appeal. the supreme court honed in on one ofd them which is that only congress can enforce section iii of the 14th amendment the provision that bars of former officials who engage the

insurrection rebellion from ■public office. the supreme court said only congress can set up the rules for enforcing that provision against federalfederal officeho. that was the specific question. colorado supremes court is a state court it had no authority to make the determination that donald trump was ineligible for engaging in insurrection per. >> really surprise it was unanimous ruling? >> and no i was not. because of the many, many trump cases the supreme court is hearing. this would seem pretty clear the court was going to go into this ral argument and it was also the consensus of many observers of the court.llowed each state to make this kind of determination were pretty severe. the same can of the supre court majority could be qualified inat some states. not qualified in others.

even based on the same records. this is not a shocker. three liberal justices a concurring opinion can you explain what the argument was? >> sure. to use the sometimes exotic and nomenclature all nine agree with the judgment. but not the opinion. they're only five who agreed with the majority was unsigned. we know who they were because we know who they are. process of elimination of it being a majority. three liberal justices jointly authored an opinion that itially, according to what some indications with a partial dissent because somebody and noted the metadata on the document the supreme court published use the word dissenting to refer to opinions that's not what is said when it

came out so they decided to frame it more diplomatically as a concurrence. it's more indication this court was divided about how far to go at ruling for donald trump and that is what the issue was. how far should the supreme court go insane trump stays on the ity went prettyth far laying out a specific way to enforce section iii of the the three said look we agree only a federal law can enforce this when it comes to presidential candidates. but you are closing the door to many other federal law could step in. for example let's say someone was being prosecuted by■c an insurr■ectionist rate prosecutor appointed by insurrectionist could you raise that and say you have no right to bring charges against because you do not legitimately hold the office.

that possibility was foreclosed by the majority of justice in the coney barrett who is herself a trump appointee in the final months of his term she also said she did not agree with the majority should go so far. the majo sshe said but the spott should be on the fact they all agree on the bottom line. she basically said it was not the right time to heighten division and point out divisions. americans should note on the outcome of the specific case and not the disagreements within justices about how to get there. >> does this supreme court decision put an end to all other similar efforts to remove a former president trump of the ballot? >> yes it does if they are in state corporate just last week in illinois statedg j agreed with the colorado courts and said trump cannot be on the ballot he engaged in

insurrection. that action comes to an end and so will pretty much every other action at the state level. >> reminded viewers what else the supreme court is looking out when it comes to the former president and generally six?tr >> donald trump is given the court a lot of work to do this term. the most important case coming up is going to be argued in april. that involves trump's appeal of the lower court decisions h must stand trial on charges he attempted to subvert the 2020 election. trump has argued unsuccessfully so far tt president when he took these actions there are allegedly criminal he enjoys a constitutional immunity from percent which should be anything a president does to potential prosecution or litigation after he leaves office. with a hamstring future hamstris who be to trepidation us about

making bold decisions foreing pe future. that is his arguments about why even a former president should not be prosecution. the supreme court is going to hear that argument in april and make a decision we would think before the end of june. that will detmine whether he goes on trial in washington d.c. on those charges brought by special counsel jack smith. and then there are another of other trump related cases including ones a little bit more amusing there's a trademark dispute over the phrase a trump too small a california man who does not care for the former president was to trademark that phrase. and sellar t-shirts and knickknacks displaying it. the biden administration is opposing him and said you cannot trademark the name of a political candidate against tha. canvas wishes. t the biden administration defendant donald trump interest in that use of his own name.

we have a whole range of different cases from amusing to the deadly serious involving mr. >> wall street journal supreme court correspondent thank you so much for joining us. >> thank you for having me. ♪ c spans a "washington journal" our live form involving you to discuss the latest issues in government, politics, public policy. from washington and across the country. coming up wednesday morning david weigle discusses the super tuesday results. what they mean for the presidential race. we'll talk about the upcoming government funding deadline. border security, conflicts in gaza and ukraine. congressman. georgia republican congressman richard mccormick. for no labels discusses centrist bipartisan group effort to field a third party ticket in 2024.

see spans "washington journal"ne at 7:00 a.m. eastern wednesday morning on c-span, c-span now our free mobile app or online at book tv every sunday and cspan2 features leading authors discussin their latest nonfictin books. at 8:00 p.m. eastern journalist elizabeth shares the stories of three women from india, syria, the u.s. who have committed violent acts as a means of then at 10:00 p.m. eastern on after words, doctor elizabeth coleman author of fall on her head look at the medical history of women's health and how that narrative arod women's bodies were shaped mostly by men purchase interviewed by muhlenberg college humanities progm. watch a book tv every sunday on cspan2. find a full schedule on your

program guide or watch online anytime a booktv.org. ♪'s he spent as your own filtered view of government that we are funded by these television companies and more including ♪ ♪. ■s♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ support c-span as a public service along with these other television providers for giving you a front row seat to democracy.