our supreme court analyst marcia coyle has been following it all and joins us now.ces expressed concern these laws punish homeless people who have no other choice but to sleep outside. what was the basis of the case? >> the lawsuit filed by the homeless citizens in grants pass claimed the ordinance prohibiting camping in public spaces punish them and violate the eighth amendment cruel and unusual punishment clause. they said they were being punished because of their status and the supreme court said in earlier opinions you cannot punish someone on the basis of their status. you can punish conduct but not status. >> our team spoke with ed johnson, the attorney who first brought the suit against the city, grants pass, oregon as well as an attorney representing the city who argued before the court today. >> these are past for generations. went to high school there. all of a sudden there was no place for them to live. this is not only not a solution to homelessness, it will make matters worse. they will have a criminal record which makes it harder to convince an employe

following all of this is the newshour's william brangham, and our supreme court analyst marcia coyle.oth at the supreme court. remind us of what is president trump's argument and what is the response. marcia: former president trump is asking the council to say the former president has absolute unity for conduct involving his or her official acts, and that that immunity stretches all the way to the outer perimeter of his office. and he is looking to certain clauses in the constitution and certain precedents to both of that argument. but the court is saying there is no immunity clause in the constitution and it does not extend to the president's official acts, although the government said there is a small core group of powers inarguable to the constitution that are off-limits to criminal law. john: the justices spent a lot of time today exploring how to distinguish between a private act and a public act. we have justice elena kagan posing a hypothetical to trump's attorney. >> he was the president, he is the commander in chief. he talks to his generals all the time. and he told the gene

following all of this is the “newshour's” william brangham, and our supreme court analyst marcia coylepreme court this morning. remind us the basics. what is president's argument and the response? >> very simply, president trump is asking the court to say that a former president has absolute immunity for conduct involving his or her official acts, and that that immunity stretches all the way to the outer perimeter of his office. and he's looking to certain clauses in the constitution and certain precedents to bolster that argument, but the government is saying basically there is no immunity clause in the constitution. it does not extend to the president's official acts. although the government said today there is a small core group of powers that are in article two of the constitution, like the pardon power or the veto power that are off limits to criminal law. >> william, the justices spent a lot of time today distinguishing or exploring how to distinguish between a private act and a public act. and we've got justice elena kagan, posing a hypothetical to trump's attorney. >> he was th