i m katy tur in for ana cabrera. we are moments away from a, quote, rule for the ages. the supreme court has four decisions left to issue, including the decision on whether a president enjoys immunity for what they do while in office. a decision so big and so significant, justice neil gorsuch said during arguments they would be, quote, writing a rule for the ages, as i managed up top. what will the justices decide and what will it mean for the criminal case in overturning the 2020 election results. i m joined by msnbc legal xant lisa rubin, former fbi general counsel andrew weissmann, former u.s. attorney and senior u.s. attorney chuck rosenberg. also with us, forming acting solicitor general neal katyal. first let s go to nbc s yamiche alcindor outside the supreme court. yamiche, lay it all out for us. reporter: this is sure to be a consequential day at the supreme court where judges are set to decide on the trump immunity case. all of this is connected to his efforts to o
again, it s a mixed bag decision. there is some presidential immunity. there is presidential immunity for official acts, not unofficial acts. the way that they ve worded it as we ve been discussing at this table and with our guests is that it does seem to lean heavily toward donald trump s arguments here, that he can do what he wants to do as the president of the united states. let s bring in ken dilanian outside of the supreme court. ken, what do you have? reporter: yeah, katy, i think the analysis here has been spot on. you know, the decision goes a long way to say that the president is not above the law and that private acts, unofficial acts are not immune. but if you look at the implications for jack smith s indictment of former president trump, they appear to be dire because there s a whole section in the indictment about donald trump s efforts to enlist the justice department to falsely- allegedly falsely proclaim there was fraud in the election, write letters to stat
dissents in her opinion, which concurred in part. still, these justices, thomas, alito, kavanaugh, gorsuch, roberts and barrett seemed to treat the allegations and the indictment that brought this ground breaking case to the supreme court as more of an academic moment than an existential one. the allegations that the former president of the united states while in office tried to use the levers of power to keep himself in office. reading the decision can seem circular, even. the president is immune because the constitution implies he is immune, even when highs trying to violate the same constitution. the dissents were so scathing, instead, plowing through the majority s reasoning. from justice jackson, quote, the majority of my colleagues seem to have put their trust in our court s ability to prevent presidents from becoming kings through case-by-case application of the indeterminate standards of their new presidential accountability paradigm. i fear that they are wrong, but f
thank you so much for letting us into your homes during these truly extraordinary times. we are grateful. the beat with katie phang in for ari starts right now. hi, katie. thanks, nicole. i think extraordinary is an understatement these days, but thank you, i appreciate it. have a good show. thanks. and welcome to the beat, i m katie phang in for ari melber. the supreme court today handing down a win for donald trump in his federal insurrection case. a consequential decision that will affect presidential power for years to come, ruling that trump has immunity for some of his official conduct as president but not for private, unofficial acts. here s how that played out. the high court has just issued one of its most consequential rulings in decades. the president has absolute immunity for core constitutional powers, however, not for unofficial acts. five alarm fire. supreme court has decreed him a king. how the justices rule could well define the parameters