right now on "ana cabrera reports," we're coughing breaking news from the supreme court expected to release decisions at any moment, one of which could be the highly anticipated ruling on donald trump's colorado ballot case. just 24 hours from the super tuesday vote. plus, nikki haley getting a primary victory, but does her win in washington, d.c. do anything to change the trajectory before tomorrow's elections? or will donald trump complete his primary dominance this week? we're live in super tuesday states across the country. and later, fire and ice. the monster blizzard bringing dangerous conditions to california as wind whips wildfires in the texas panhandle. all right. we just got the breaking news. thank you for being with us here on msnbc. the supreme court issuing a ruling on the colorado ballot case. i want to go straight to ken dilanian who is outside the

supreme court with this decision. ken, what do we know? >> reporter: good morning, ana. we've learned that it was a 9-0 decision ruling that donald trump can be on the ballot in colorado and other states. justices during the oral arguments seem very skeptical of the idea that one state could decide for the nation whether donald trump was an insurrectionist and was therefore disqualified under this 150-year-old provision. now we know there was not a single justice who held that view. so there were no dissents to this 9-0 decision ruling that donald trump can remain on the ballot in colorado as voters go to the polls tomorrow during super tuesday, and also in maine where there had been a decision to disqualify him from the ballot, and this ruling we understand has the effect of prohibiting other states from attempting to do so, and that's what we heard from both liberal and conservative justices during the oral arguments, ana. for example, elena kagan confronting the plaintiffs

essentially saying, your problem here is you're arguing that one state can decide for the nation who can be president, and no justice was willing to go along with that. >> and lisa, you are looking through -- we have our lisa rubin here with us. as you look through this decision, that would just -- just put on the website there of the supreme court. >> yep. >> what stands out most to you, besides the fact that this was a 9-0 decision? >> it was a 9-0 decision, ana, and the decision was decided on the grounds that congress, not the states, has the power to enforce section 3 of the 14th amendment. still you have four justices concurring in the judgment meaning they agree with the result, but also concurring separately and saying that the way that they disagree with the majority or the prokurm opinion is they don't feel they have the need to decide this enforcement

mechanism. justice barrett who is just for herself, and sotomayor. kagan and jackson saying this is not a right the that belongs to the state, but all four of them casting doubt on the mechanism of enforcement that this is an enacted legislation. that's important because one other way that you could find that someone is disqualified is for example, through a federal court ruling or you could find that someone is an insurrectionist through their criminal -- through criminal liability. so there are a number of different ways that i think these justices are raising section 3 could have been enforced, and yet the procure yam decision says, but he will be on the ballot. >> andrea is with us. what is your reaction to this?

>> two reactions. one is the fact that it is unanimous in result. i think that makes it complicated for people who want to view the decision as political, and that this is the, you know, the conservative wing which is now -- it's a very large wing of six taking this on. i mean, the problem with that analysis, of course, is that you have the three so-called liberal justices agreeing with this conclusion. so this is really, i think, best viewed as a decision about the -- about a legal call. i also as my second point, think it doesn't take on and say that donald trump did not engage in insurrection. >> mm-hmm. >> in other words, the issue of the facts, is he an insurrectionist or not, was not before the court, and they do not in any way that i've seen so

far, and after quick skimming, take that on to say that we are saying that that was an incorrect, factual finding. they're simply deciding this as a legal basis, and i think the third thing which, again, i would have to read it more closely, is it will put more questions to why jack smith didn't charge essentially insurrection, didn't charge a criminal statute which was passed of course, by congress whereupon conviction it disqualifies you from holding office because that would seemingly potentially qualify for what the supreme court says is necessary, that sort of federal action that they're looking for as opposed to individual, unilateral state action. so those are my three sort of quick takes on a quick reading of the -- or skimming i should say of the opinion. >> i'll let you continue to skim, but please do stay with us. general neil cateal is also with

us. let me just read directly from this opinion. it says, because the constitution makes congress rather than the states responsible for enforcing section 3 against federal office holders and candidates, we reverse, meaning they reverse the decision by the colorado supreme court that would have kicked trump off the ballot. your thoughts on the decision and the reasoning the justices are giving for making this ruling? >> this is 100% the decision that was expected after the oral argument which went so poorly for those who were trying to defend the colorado decision to kick donald trump off the ballot. what the decision says, and it's unanimous on this point, is that there isn't any way that the 14th amendment provision has been implemented by for example, congressional legislation. there's some debate among the majority of the court, and

justices sotomayor, kagan and jackson, as well as justice barrett about what congress or someone else, some other government entity needs to do, but the bottom line is it is the sweeping victory for donald trump that was expected on this issue of disqualification. however, the court did not do what donald trump asked which was to clear him of insurrection. his brief to the u.s. supreme court said supreme court ruled i am not an insurrectionist, that i engaged in peaceful behavior on january 6th. the court did pointedly -- nowhere in my quick skim so far, and it's only been a few minutes, did the court accept any of that. they rather ruled on a more technical ground. this is a sweeping victory in the sense that trump will remain on the ballot in colorado and other states we can expect, but it is not clearing him of the january 6th charges. that's, of course, separate action that the supreme court

took last week to try and delay his january 6th trial while they decide the question of whether he's absolutely immune. so bottom line, a good day for donald trump. not a great day in the sense he's not cleared of january 6th, but he can remain on the ballot. >> so neal, if i'm understanding you correctly, that being said on the insurrection question and whether trump engaged in an insurrection, could the supreme court eventually have to answer that? why wouldn't they have gone into that issue which is sort of the meaty part of this case? >> well, i think one of the ways the supreme court generally operates is to not decide issues they don't have to. that's the way, you know, that's how they protect their legitimacy, by not reaching out to decide too much. our colleague, marissa murray has called this supreme court the yolo court in which they are reaching out to the side issues they don't have to. it is in one sense, one that

would lead donald trump feeling disappointed today that they didn't do that. i suspect they didn't do that because there are criminal proceedings that are ongoing against donald trump right now, where that very question is the ball game, and so for the supreme court to have reached out to try and grab that in this case, i think would have been premature. i think now the action focuses where it should be which is that trump january 6th criminal trial. the supreme court will hear an argument whether he is immune from his conduct from january 6th. they'll hear an oral argument during the week of april 22nd. i think it's notable that today is the day that the trump -- the trial against donald trump for january 6th would have started and instead we're talking about this supreme court opinion on the 14th amendment and we're not going to get to talk about that trial because the supreme court last week delayed it through at least april, you know, the end of april, and so the supreme court will decide that case. i suspect very strongly that

that case will be the inverse of this one, that it's a unanimous or close to unanimous loss for donald trump on the idea that he's absolutely immune, and assuming the supreme court can reach that decision quickly, and i sure hope they reach it as quickly as they reached this one, then the trial against donald trump for january 6th can proceed and we can learn -- the american public with all the evidence splaed out in front of us, did donald trump commit insurrectionist acts on january the 6th? that's the conclusion, and we the american public deserve to know the answer to that question and to hear all of the evidence before the election. >> i understand trump just put a post on truth social calling this a big victory, and we listened to the arguments after the supreme court heard those arguments in this particular case. he called them beautiful. he was anticipating a win here it seems. so those who are thinking about how trump selected three of the

current justices on the bench and are wondering whether that had any influence in today's decision, andrew, what would you say? >> i have three answers to that, and that is justice kagan, justice sotomayor, and justice ketanji brown jackson. in other words, this is a unanimous decision, and it's a point of law. i think, you know, this is really about, should the states have the ability to disqualify somebody versus it being decided by some federal mechanism? and that's where there's a disagreement among the justices, whether congress is the exclusive means or not. it seems like actually all the justices agree that it may not be the exclusive means, but it's certainly a primary means to congressional action. notably justice coney barrett says that the reason she didn't want to go so far to say that it's only congress is that she

thinks it's very important in a political season to have the sort of rhetoric of a political season. the temperature taken down, not up, and so i think she's trying to say in her short concurrence is she's saying, this is not a political decision. this is just about who should be able to decide this issue saying it should be left to the feds, not to the states, and to reiterate something i said and that neal is saying, it does not decide that donald trump is or is not an insurrectionist. that is actually by every -- every court that has actually or secretary of state that has actually addressed the issue and found him disqualified has said he engaged in insurrection. so it doesn't address that factual issue that will be before the electorate where the jury on that will be the american citizens. this is simply an issue of --

when you are running for federal office, should the states be able to disqualify somebody or not, and the nine justices said no. this is something that should not be allowed for each state to decide who runs for federal office. so -- and clearly this is something that was joined in by so-called conservatives and so-called liberal justices on that law point. you know, it is a victory for donald trump in that sense, but not on the facts of what he engaged in and whether it instituted criminal conduct as well which still remains before both the georgia and d.c. courts as a criminal matter. >> let me read another portion of the decision. quote, this case raises the question whether the states in addition to congress may also enforce section 3, and we can conclude that states may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office, but states have no power under the constitution to enforce

section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the presidency. neal, we know that maine had also issued a ruling that said trump was ineligible for the ballot. we know illinois just last week had a same finding, and there are more than a dozen states where this issue had risen to the surface and were left unresolved. does this put the 14th amendment discussion now to bed once and for all, for all of the states that maish involved? >> it very well may. this is a very technical part of the supreme court's holding, and i don't want to speak to it without studying it very carefully, but at least my quick skim of the decision suggests that, yes. it does put the strict legal challenges to the 14th

amendment. it's a debate between some of the justices on the court. it appears to that point, but i think that as a practical matter, yes. it puts those aside. now what it doesn't put aside is the 14th amendment section 3 is not just about courts. it's not just about, you know, about election officials disqualifying something. it's also rule of thumb for you and me. one of the most important moments in our history after the civil war, our nation came together and said, look. insurrectionists should not be on the ballot. the court today is not saying that donald trump is free of the charges of being an insurrectionist, and i think we should all remember what those words of the 14th amendment are, and maybe that congress hasn't implemented legislation to enforce it, but you and i enforced the 14th amendment too by what we do at the ballot box, and so while the supreme court decision today was expected on the idea that congress hasn't passed implementing legislation,

it does leave the door open for a trial against donald trump, for the evidence to be produced against donald trump, and for the american people to still say, you are an insurrectionist for what you did, and we do not think you belong on the ballot -- we're going to vote against you come november should you be on the ballot. >> neal katyal, thank you for your analysis. >> you are continuing to read through this opinion as you are just outside the supreme court this morning. i'm curious what's happening there at this moment, and what you think stands out in this decision that we all -- we all should know. >> reporter: it's well, it's pretty quiet outside the court today. not a lot of protesters or onlookers. look. in terms of -- what i find fascinating about this opinion is that for many, many months, serious people entertain the idea that this 14th amendment challenge was plausible, that actually donald trump could be excluded from the ballot, and

here you have this resounding 9-0 decision including very liberal justices saying absolutely not. there's no chance yet. this is not how our democracy works. where a state could decide for the nation who could be on the ballot, and, you know, the other thing stepping back, ana, is this is another example among many that are playing out right now of the supreme court playing a huge role in american elections, and it's not necessarily the case that that's a good thing for the supreme court. the approval levels of the court poll at historic lows. 41% in a recent poll, approve of the job that the supreme court is doing, and the court's decision to take the immunity case on its regular order rather than on an expedited basis which will result in a significant delay in that case going to trial in washington, d.c., that's a very controversial decision, and it's going to be seen by many people as the court

essentially interfering in some sense in the election, and so this is all sort of playing out here in terms of how we assess the supreme court and its legacy. >> lisa, "the new york times" put it very succinctly this morning writing, not since bush v. gore -- george w. bush obviously, and that was the presidency that was handed to bush, but have they had a direct role in a presidential contest. how big a factor is the supreme court in this election? >> obviously it's a huge factor now in states' ability to regulate who was on the presidential primary and general election ballots. i think this decision and i know neal wants to be especially careful, and i appreciate that, but i think this decision finally does put to rest the power of states to disqualify presidential candidates from their ballots. they say very quickly in the state enforcement of section 3 would raise heightened concerns because state by state

resolution would be quite unlikely to yield a uniform answer consistent with the basic principle that the president represents all the voters in the nation, and then the court goes on to talk about what could possibly happen if different states, having different litigations of their own, and different courts with different evidentiary rules reached different results. we would then have a patchwork that would result from that, that they believe is bad for the nation. in terms of what happens to the rest of this election cycle, ana, i think that is yet to be determined in terms of their immunity decision obviously, but you see -- i'm sorry. in the concurrence from justices sotomayor, kagan, and jackson, a warning of sorts in my view to some of the other justices saying, we didn't need to decide anything more here than the principle that states don't have the authority to disqualify candidates for federal offices, and by going further than that and saying that only congress has that enforcement power, you have decided something that didn't need to be done, and they

say, we protest the majority's efforts to use this case to define the limits of federal endorsement of that provision because we would only decide the issue before us. we concur only in the judgment. they're saying, this is a warning, right? this is a shot across the bough. don't have to decide anything you don't have to. let's not do that. that's what i read in that. >> i have another quote i want to read. it says, quote, after ratification of the 14th amendment, states used this authority to disqualify state officers in accordance with state statutes. such power over governance, however, does not extend to federal officer holders and candidates. so really overemphasizing this issue of states really only being able to decide 14th amendment decisions for state offices, and those who would be within their more local

jurisdiction. i do think you bring up a really good point, lisa, about how some of the justices are viewing this, and the broader context about the influence on this -- the potential influence on this election when voters are getting ready to go to the polls. they already have in some states. you think about tomorrow, super tuesday and the dozen plus states where people will be voting in colorado and maine, which of course, were two of the states where the 14th amendment challenge came up and had been accepted by the officials in those states and by courts in those states. there's still a lot of information lacking for voters when it comes to the candidacy of donald trump, and his full depth of potential responsibility or accountability when it comes to january 6th, and so this issue of whether he has presidential immunity is huge, and andrew, we got this decision on the colorado 14th amendment ballot question very

quickly from the supreme court, and here on the presidential immunity issue, we won't even hear the arguments until late april. the d.c. interference trial was set to begin today as neal had pointed out. so why wouldn't they have that on the same expedited timeline? >> that's a great point. so one quick point about the decision today, and then turning to this issue of the next decision that they have coming up which has to do with presidential immunity. what's notable here is on some -- on a variety of issues, this is actually a 5-4 decision, and you have the four who are saying that the court went too far just happen to also be the four women on the court. so amy coney barrett has the exact same reasoning that she said they went too far. they're deciding things they did not need to. they decided exactly, like,

whether congress has to pass a statute with something they didn't need to decide, whether this applies to all federal office holders is something they didn't need to decide, and it's interesting to me that you have all four of these justices saying that, that the court went too far against the male justices on the court. ana, with respect to your issue with immunity, it's really striking to me because that is an issue that the court has really put this on a slow track, but in the logic of the argument is that both sides should really want this decided very quickly. the government wants it decided quickly because they want to get to trial very quickly and vindicate the fact that they think they have the proof here, and donald trump really has no business saying this should be slow because his claim with respect to immunity is he should not be charged at all. he just should not be under

indictment. she should not be under bail restrictions. he should not be subject to the gag order. all of that he says, he is immune from. so the parties, their only legitimate argument to the court is to have that decided quickly, and yet i think the supreme court has really played into the political realm of doing this on a slow track and his de facto delaying that trial, about insurrection, the thing that is very much an issue in the decision that came down today, but they are right now indefinitely delaying that case. we have no time frame for when that case will get back on track because they are not hearing that in the expeditious way that frankly is the only thing that both parties have an interest in. i know donald trump would like to say he never wants to go to trial, but that's not a

cognizable claim that any court should be recognizing. >> i do want to bring in paul butler now. he's a former federal prosecutor. nbc legal analyst. paul, you have had a chance now to kind of digest a little bit of what just happened, right? that donald trump is eligible now to stay on the ballot in these states where there had been these election challenges. also with us is former federal prosecutor michael zeldin as well. good to see you both. paul, we are hearing from the colorado secretary of state affirming she got the message. trump's on the ballot and all votes for trump will be counted in super tuesday since that's when colorado voters will make their voices and their votes count. what do you think about this decision from the supreme court and their logic as they explain it in the ruling here? >> so unlike colorado, the supreme court didn't decide whether january 6th was an insurrection or whether the

former president is an insurrectionist. this is decided on fairly narrowly proceeded grounds and saying that congress is responsible for enforcement of section 3, not the states. the states can decide who is eligible for state office, but not for federal offices. all nine justices agreed on that point. ana, what i think is especially interesting is that the three progressive judges joined by one conservative justice, barrett, who was appointed by donald trump, they disagreed with the six or actually with the five justices in the majority about whether section 3 is self-enacting. so what the progressive justices think is that a court went too far in stating that congress must pass a law about how

section 3 works. again, they think that section 3 could be self-executing. the reason that that's important is that if section 3 is executing, congress itself could kick trump off the ballot right now, but the opinion that is five justices suggest that congress can't do that immediately. >> and they do right for present purposes. our differences are far less important than our unanimity. all nine justices agree on this case. that is the message americans should take home. the justices write in this decision that just came down, moments ago, michael zeldin, your thoughts about the decision and what message the supreme court is sending more broadly to the american people, and do you see any clues as to how they may

look at the immunity decide when that time comes? >> three great questions. first and foremost, of course, we learned that section 3 applies to the office of the president, the presidency. remember in colorado, they said that it didn't, and so we get that determination, and second, i think historically they're correct that section 3 of the 14th amendment was intended to exclude former insurrectionists, their confederate officers and that the federal government would determine their eligibility to hold office. it's not a state's rights decision, and i think that was, you know, an important point to make in this decision, that states can put former insurrectionists back into federal office, unless there's some immunity, and then three, i think that it doesn't portend i think an answer to what the immunity question will be. i think the immunity question stands separate and apart, ana,

from this. i think that neal katyal is right that we could get the inverse of this decision, 9- to, but it's very hard to predict that because it could well be in that immunity case they say like they did in the civil context, that there are some narrow circumstances where former presidents can have immunity from criminal prosecution, and we will send this case back to the trial judge to determine whether this fits into that narrow group of exceptions. so there's a lot of danger in the way the supreme court will answer this immunity question, but for now, they've said trump can run for office, and unless he is convicted of insurrection or congress enacts some form of legislation to address the question of eligibility, he will be on the general election ballot in most all 50 states. >> okay, and now we have with us laura, tara, and von hilliard

on set. everybody, stay with me. laura, you're reading through it. you're a senior legal analyst and correspondent. what are your thoughts? >> the court clearly was trying to figure out how to reconcile this, not just for colorado, but for every state. they say clearly they didn't want a patchwork that would result from colorado being able to do this and another state going another way. they recognize the fact that not only colorado, but two other states had tried to ban him from the ballot, which underscored the fact they wanted a unified rule for everyone. their way of getting around that, and the way of them wrestling with that is to say, this is for congress. this is not for the states and that's where the liberals on the court are saying you went further than you needed to, essentially, and you could have just stopped with the colorado couldn't do this, but they went a step further. >> why would they go a step further if they didn't need to? >> i wish i had the reporting on

that. i'll get to that as soon as i'm off the set. >> can you read their minds for us, laura? >> no, but i do think the overall sort of -- overarching message from them is clear that all nine justices agree, and so they upshot sort of the practical reality is this is not going to happen and many had always seen this as a long shot effort to get him disqualified, even though other people had said if you just look at the plain text of it, obviously he should be disqualified, and many, not just progressives, but republicans, conservatives wrote articles about this. >> these were republican voters in colorado along with two independent voters in colorado who brought this case. >> and in other states, it has been that as well, and so he didn't just cleanly break along party lines is my point, but obviously the court thought as an institution, it was important for them to speak with one voice on this. >> what are we hearing from trump world? >> so far we have one response here from donald trump himself on his social media post in

which it's quite simple. it's, quote, big win for america in all caps in his attorney, noting that this is a moment in which the millions of americans will not be disenfranchised. this was at the forefront of the arguments of trump's attorneys as well as his political advisers making the case that, look at the results from these early primary states so far. overwhelmingly republican voters want donald trump to be the republican nominee again, and let's face it here. whether folks agree with him or not, there are systems in place when we're talking about ways to keep donald trump from the ballot. one of those is referred to by the supreme court here as congress to determine whether he engaged in insurrection or not, and in the weeks after the january 6th attack, the u.s. house did, in fact, vote to impeach donald trump for his role in the efforts to overturn the 2020 election, but then the u.s. senate which it would require a two-thirds majority to

actually convict and remove him from office and bar him from ever serving again, fell ten votes short. seven republicans voted to convict him, but they needed ten other republicans. so at that point, the congress way of getting donald trump off the ballot in 2024 failed and also we should note. jack smith, the special counsel did not file any federal charges related directly to insurrection against donald trump. so there were means potentially of removing donald trump from the ballot, but what we hear from the supreme court this morning is with the presumption that he becomes the nominee here this summer, donald trump will be on the ballot in november's general election. >> we will hear from donald trump we're told at noon who is going to be speaking from mar-a-lago is our understanding, and reacting to this ruling that just came down from the supreme court. again, a 9-0 decision from the supreme court that donald trump is eligible to run for office of the presidency here and cannot

be barred because of section 3 of the 14th amendment which was the question at issue in this colorado ballot challenge case, and this ruling now applying to all the state where is these challenges have been brought and as the voters in more than a dozen states go to the polls tomorrow in the primary election including in colorado, we're getting some reaction from the secretary of state there in colorado who wrote on x, i am disappointed in the u.s. supreme court's decision stripping states of the authority to enforce section 3 of the 14th amendment for federal candidates. colorado should be able to bar oath-breaking insurrections from our ballot, she writes, but again, the supreme court saying that isn't the case here. >> can i add something, ana, if i can? that language that jenna griswold is parroted by justices

sotomayor, kagan, and jackson. they wrote, they go beyond the necessities of this case, to bar an oath-breaking insurrectionist, the same language jenna griswold uses, from becoming president. while the decision goes out of its way not to say anything at all about whether donald trump, in fact, violated his oath or participated or committed insurrection, you've got the three liberal justices here characterizing this case in a way that suggests they believe that he is. i also want to say something if i can, about why the decision went further than just finding as all nine justices did, that states don't have the power to enforce section 3. it's because if you find that the states can't and that they don't have that power which is not present in the text of the constitution, you've got to find a reason why, and they seem to have hung their hat, at least in part on section 5 of the 14th amendment which says that congress shall have the power to enforce by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

it nowhere says that congress should have the only power and, in fact, those like colorado who are arguing they did have the power to disqualify pressed that point, but i think the justices who wanted to find that the states don't have the authority had to find it somewhere in the text of the constitution and not just in its structure, and that section 5 gave them a place to hang their hats. >> now ryan is with us. i think it's ironic maybe, the timing of this decision coming on march 4th, the day the federal election case against donald trump was set to go to trial, and that case is permanently on pause at this point until the supreme court takes up the issue of presidential immunity. >> reporter: it really is. you know, when this case was first set out back in august, jack smith's case, today was the day they scheduled, right? they were actually trying, you know, we would be getting into questions of jury selection.

we would be getting into potentially opening arguments this week. it would be all unfolding theoretically, but that's not what happened because of what happened in the appeals process and what happened in the supreme court behind me here, and, you know, even after this, there's still going to be two of these charges against donald trump that are still, i think sort of up in the air. two of the charges that jack smith brought were also using its more than 300 january 6th defendants itself, and we don't know that until how the supreme court sees that will be applied. the question is whether or not the question of donald -- how much responsibility donald trump bears for what happened on january 6th, and then the aftermath of the 2020 election will be resolved before we get to another election and that's not a situation that, you know, a lot of folks thought they would be in in the aftermath immediately after january 6th when there was a lot more, i think, temporarily political unity about the events of that day, and just the fact that they

were bad for democracy. >> laura, you and i cover the supreme court together when they issue the opinions that often drop, you know, sometime in april and beyond. >> last week of june. >> the bigger the issue, the more we have to wait and the anticipation builds, and the supreme court has a lot on its plate this term. >> yeah. >> how significant is it that it's having to devote so much of its time and so many of its efforts to trump? >> it matters, and it certainly matters because these are ones that cannot wait. this one couldn't wait until the end of june. knowing that all these other states sort of had the cases in the queue and we saw the decisions as you mentioned in illinois and maine, they needed to get this out right away, and then the immunity issue that we have been discussing all morning, also one that's timely. people can debate about whether the court should have the political calendar in mind as it's making an illegal decision, but obviously that one's going to be heard the week of april 22nd, and the timing there,

interesting because the special counsel had asked for them to hear it very quickly. they wanted to hear it this month. the court said, no. we'll take it in april, but even that's happening fast. the court's view of an emergency and our view might not exactly be the same, but for them, april is fast, but it also means that all the other work is essentially having to be put to the side. it doesn't mean they don't have an army of clerks working day and night to try and crank things out as much as they can, but some of these more pressing cases about trump are certainly consuing an enormous amount of the docket right now, especially the immunity one. >> everybody, please stay with me. we'll squeeze in just a quick break, but much more of or coverage on the supreme court's decision on the colorado ballot case just dropping this morning. a 9-0 decision for donald trump saying he can stay on these state ballots. much more on the other side of a quick break. stay with us. more on the othera quick break. stay with us [♪♪] there's a way to cut your dishwashing time by 50%.

try dawn powerwash dish spray. it removes 99% of grease and grime in half the time. it cleans so well, you can replace multiple cleaning products. try dawn powerwash. power e*trade's easy-to-use tools, like dynamic charting and risk-reward analysis, help make trading feel effortless. and its customizable scans with social sentiment help you find and unlock opportunities in the market. e*trade from morgan stanley. with powerful, easy-to-use tools, power e*trade makes complex trading easier. react to fast-moving markets with dynamic charting and a futures ladder that lets you place, flatten, or reverse orders so you won't miss an opportunity. e*trade from morgan stanley. you know, when i take the bike out like this, all my stresses just melt away. i hear that. this bad boy can fix anything. yep, tough day at work, nice cruise will sort you right out. when i'm riding, i'm not even thinking about my painful cavity. well, you shouldn't ignore that. and every time i get stressed about having to pay my bills, i just hop on the bike, man. oh, come on, man, you got to pay your bills.

you don't have to worry about anything when you're protected by america's number-one motorcycle insurer. well, you definitely do. those things aren't related, so... ah, yee! oh, that is a vibrating pain. i brought in ensure max protein with 30 grams of protein! those who tried me felt more energy in just two weeks. -ugh. -here, i'll take that. woo hoo! ensure max protein, 30 grams protein, 1 gram sugar, 25 vitamins and minerals. and a new fiber blend with a prebiotic. (♪♪) when you put in the effort, but it starts to frizz... you skipped a step. tresemmé silk serum. use before styling for three days of weightlessly smooth hair that frizz can't beat. new tresemmé keratin smooth collection. ♪ i have type 2 diabetes, but i manage it well ♪ ♪ jardiance! ♪ ♪ it's a little pill with a big story to tell ♪ ♪ i take once-daily jardiance ♪ ♪ at each day's start! ♪ ♪ as time went on it was easy to see ♪ ♪ i'm lowering my a1c! ♪

jardiance works twenty-four seven in your body to flush out some sugar. and for adults with type 2 diabetes and known heart disease, jardiance can lower the risk of cardiovascular death, too. serious side effects may include ketoacidosis that may be fatal, dehydration that can lead to sudden worsening of kidney function, and genital yeast or urinary tract infections. a rare, life-threatening bacterial infection in the skin of the perineum could occur. stop jardiance and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of this infection ketoacidosis, or an allergic reaction. you may have an increased risk for lower limb loss. call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of infection in your legs or feet. taking jardiance with a sulfonylurea or insulin may cause low blood sugar. ♪ jardiance is really swell ♪ ♪ the little pill ♪ ♪ with a big story to tell! ♪

[dog whimpers] [thinking] why always the couch? does he need to go to puppy school? get his little puppy diploma? how much have i been spending on this little guy? when your questions about life turn into questions about money... there's erica. the virtual financial assistant to help you spend, save, and plan smarter. only from bank of america.

when i was your age, we never had anything like this. andwhat? wifi?er. wifi that works all over the house, even the basement. the basement. so i can finally throw that party... and invite shannon barnes. dream do come true. xfinity gives you reliable wifi with wall-to-wall coverage on all your devices, even when everyone is online. maybe we'll even get married one day. i wonder what i will be doing? probably still living here with mom and dad. fast reliable speeds right where you need them. that's wall-to-wall wifi on the xfinity 10g network. bubbling since at least yesterday. in terms of the strategy though on the ground, i doubt it

changes anything very much because the court actually landed where haley was hoping they would. she said at the turn of the year when all of this initially began to bubble, that she wanted the courts to keep trump on the ballot in large part because she thought that voters should be the ones to decide to put him out of the way. instead, haley was saying, i don't think trump should be president. i think i should be president. not surprising when she's the only one left in this race challenging the former president and her former boss, but this is going to be, of course, percolating now on the campaign trail. we're going to, of course, hear from trump who will try to set the tone on this decision. we've already seen reactions of jubilation from the former president as well as his allies, but for nikki haley, this continues to be the sprint to super tuesday, the sprint to those 800-plus delegates and what widely is seen as her last stand in this republican primary. we're going to see her, of course, on the ground here in texas. one of those all-important super

tuesday states. we'll be listening very closely to hear if she has reaction on this. i imagine knowing the haley campaign, if they mention this, it will be a passing mention, and they will move on pushing their narrative that the united states and the republican party needs a new alternative, needs a new generation of leader because in part, baggage like this related to january 6th, is something that the trump campaign is still actively carrying and it lends to why haley has long said he is not as electable as she is in a would-be general election against president joe biden. >> but do you think, ali, that this will just rev trump voters even more? >> reporter: look. certainly we have seen him manage to make things that should be bad and i'm talking about criminal convictions and legal woes like he has. we've seen him turn something that should be bad into something politically expedient. over the course of the last several months and years as we've seen his court cases and

indictment counts pile up, it has become something that he can raise money off of, something he can rally his supporters off of, and time and again in both entrance and exit polls that we have seen, albeit in limited capacity and in states that have voted so far, we've seen the court cases and conviction case probabilities don't give the primary voters pause. that's not shocking especially when you look at a lot of the makeup in these primaries as areas call themselves maga voters, but those are not the voters that haley herself is reaching out to in mass. instead if you look at the coalitions she's building and the ones she's attempting to build on super tuesday, it's not just republican voter, but it's independent and democratic voters that can cross over and that's where she's steeping her general election argument. she's saying, my coalition now better reflects the kind of people who can come out and vote in a general election, but to get to a general, as is always the problem for nikki haley,

you've got to get through a primary, and with each passing day and each passing contest, trump ramps up his delegate count and the math becomes even harder for her. >> she did win washington, d.c. yesterday which was the first victory. >> of course. >> she got this primary season. ali vitali, thank you. i want to bring in david jolly, and dawn edwards. both are msnbc political analysts. what's your reaction to this supreme court decision? >> i largely agree with ali. it won't have any impact on the race either in the republican primary or the general election, and count me a skeptic all along on this one, i'm not surprised by the court's ruling. i do think the one question about all of the litigation involving donald trump as it remits to january 6th and his own criminality is whether or not we can see a conviction before november, and that could be in the jack smith january 6th case unless the supreme court really does delay us so far that

we don't see that. other than that, i think all of these allegations against donald trump including the known behaviors and belief criminality of donald trump is already baked into voters' opinions, and so it either is having no effect or it's fully baked in, but one outstanding question, ana, would be a conviction. we haven't seen that dynamic, but we have seen virtually every other legal dynamic regarding donald trump, and we know where the numbers sit today. >> congressman edwards, you know donald trump is doing a victory lap, posting on social media. big win for america. what sort of ripple effect do you think this decision could have on the race going forward for him? going forward for him? >> well, i don't think it was a big win for america. i think largely most people expected the supreme court to come down where it did. i don't think it's going to have any impact at all either on the primary race or the general election. i think from president biden's standpoint and the biden/harris campaign, they have long said they continue to say, as do

democrats, that it's important to beat donald trump at the ballot box and not to depend on, you know, this court case or another court says. that stuff is going to wind its way through, and it's not going to have much effect on how the campaign proceeds, and look, donald trump is really great at taking what would be bad news for some candidates and turning it into good news for himself. no surprise there, and i think tomorrow is just going to be a banner day for donald trump, and you know, the race is going to shape up and nikki haley is going to have to make some important decision. >> congressman jolly, how do you think voters may potentially read this decision? >>. >> look, i think most -- i shouldn't say most voters, i think every voter has a different take on this. if you think that donald trump has been unduly targeted by prosecutors and the deep state, you agree with this decision. if you believe what you saw on january 6th was an insurrection right in front of our eyes, then

the constitution should hold and he should not be allowed to run for office. to try to opine on the legal opinion, i think there are enough questions. he wasn't charged with insurrection. how can one state knock him off the ballot when other states may not. all of those issues the court wrestled with. i think voters will largely take this in stride based on where they were positioned before this holding. i do think this is largely baked in, sadly, that as donna said, what would have sunk other candidates does not sink donald trump, and so the question before the nation is are we going to return to office someone who has been convicted criminally, has been not convicted or we are awaiting trial. that is a moment the nation has never faced. >> we do know some of the polling when you ask the voters about whether a conviction would make a difference in their vote shows that yes, that is something, as it relates to

election interference in the 2020 election. we're still months away, though, from the court hearing the decision and then ultimately making their ruling on the immunity claim brought by trump. oral arguments already set. how big of an effect do you think the supreme court will have on the general election, this court having an influence on the 2014 election? >> well, i think this court is exactly where it doesn't want to be and doesn't need to be, and that is right in the middle of an election, not since bush v. gore have we seen a court that's had this many opportunities to interfere in the election going forward. look, that said, i think that this campaign is going to come down to whether voters want to choose somebody who either is facing criminal conviction or is convicted of a crime, and whether or not they want to preserve democracy. those are really going to be the choices, and you know, my view

is that at the end of the day, voters are going to say they don't want to return back to the chaos of donald trump, to him undermining the rule of law, and possibly being convicted of a crime going into an inauguration. i think voters are going to be very clear about that. >> former congress members david jolly and donna edwards, thank you both very much for joining us. as we continue to follow this breaking news from the supreme court, we also have breaking news involving the ex-trump org's cfl allen weisselberg who surrendered to the manhattan d.a.'s office to face new charges. nbc's tom winter is joining us now. what do we know about these new charges, tom? >> late details from court and our colleague adam reiss who was in the courtroom, allen weisselberg has pleaded guilty to two counts of perjury in the first degree. he's admitted his guilt. the manhattan district

attorney's office is recommending a sentence of five months in jail. if he violates the terms of his sentencing and of his probation, he could ultimately face seven years in jail. he'll be out pending his sentencing, which will be on april 10th, according to adam. this all stems back to his testimony at the attorney general's trial, ana. basically there he talked about this idea that we've talked about so often that trump inflated the size of his apartment, his condominium complex on 5th avenue from 10,000 square feet to 30,000 square feet. and at the time he said that he wasn't really involved in some of that documentation and wasn't really involved in some of those claims and statements. then forbes, which had received emails and notes from weisselberg about this very issue talking about the size of that going back a number of years, some of those emails and communication the district

attorney's office and attorney general's office, forbes did not have at the time of his testimony published in an article that he lied multiple times on the stands. and the manhattan district attorney's office agrees with that and allen weisselberg has pleaded guilty to that as well. there's no indication of any sort of cooperation agreement. we do not expect his testimony at the upcoming criminal trial of the former president. that trial slated to begin by the end of this month or at least jury selection, and that stems back to a series of payments to two women and a pattern of conduct we've well discussed at this point. he will not be testifying. this is not contingent on any future testimony. this is a straight guilty plea as it pertains to that testimony involved in the a.g.'s civil case, which trump has appealed that, the massive over $450 million fine and disgorgement. >> that news continuing to come as we continue to follow today's decision from the supreme court.

back with us to discuss, msnbc legal correspondent, lisa rubin, paul butler, former federal prosecutor, and msnbc legal analyst. and michael zeldin, former federal prosecutor. one of the things that the supreme court mentioned in this decision is it's essentially congress's role to decide whether the 14th amendment applies and whether somebody should or shouldn't be eligible on a federal ballot or for a federal position. so could congress later decide this decision on whether the 14th amendment applies to trump? >> absolutely. and they would do it according to this decision today through what they would call self-executing legislation. i'm sorry, not self-executing, remedial legislation that congress would pass legislation to basically enact section 3 of the 14th amendment. you may recall, ana, and i think it's lost on a lot of folks, that shortly after january 6th there was a push among

congressional democrats to do exactly that, to pass a piece of legislation through the house first and then potentially through the senate that would disqualify donald trump under section 3. it never really caught fire in large part because folks felt that, a, the impeachment process would wrap itself up, right? and so there wouldn't be any need. >> so this was a 9-0 decision, but in the concurring opinion, paul, the liberal supreme court justices called trump an oath breaking insurrectionist. direct quote, oath-breaking insurrectionist. what do you see as the significance of that? >> so that's one reason why justice barrett, a conservative on the court wrote separately. she agreed with the three progressives that congress -- that the supreme court went too far in the main opinion, but this is also interestingly enough about abortion. so quick insight into the politics of the court. another reason why justice barrett wrote separately from the progressive justices is

about the dobbs case. that's the case where the court overturned roe versus wade. the progressives, the first case that they pulled in their opinion is dobbs for the proposition that the court should never decide more than it has to. so the progressive justices think when the court does that in the colorado case, that's the same kind of power grab that they did in the abortion case. so -- and when they reversed decades of precedent about a woman's right to choose. so ana, of course justice barrett can't sign on to an opinion making that point because in dobbs she voted with the majority. but here, even in a unanimous decision on the judgment, the progressives are still beefing with the conservatives, accusing the conservatives of judicial activism. >> public confidence in the supreme court is at or near record lows right now. we've got a minute left here,

what is on the line for america's democratic system of checks and balances this term? as again, the supreme court gears up to take another trump-related case, the presidential immunity question. >> right, and so i think these two cases read in combination will answer that question. if they, as they've done now, allowed trump to remain on the ballot and then give him immunity from prosecution, i think that will be a terrible day for the court from a political activism standpoint. if they say he can stay on the ballot but he doesn't have immunity and he has to go to trial and be held accountable or not accountable depending on how a jury rules, then i think it's a good day. and what we don't know from this current supreme case, this is more or less a civil case. we don't know whether the insurrectionist statu