Its one more way. Aspen dental is in your would you agree on by legally have to read whats in the prompt or so have a new host, Comedy Centrals daily show tonight. Im 11 on Comedy Central some people go to the ends of the earth to find adventure. You just have to travel to the end of the road because here in kyiv he west were the Launching Point for a world of breathtaking action and excitement from deep sea quests and shallowwater pursuits to living history lessons and journeys on the bounding main key west, close to perfect, far from normal eva mckend in vermont and this is cnn shaping him on the ballot. The Supreme Court ruling in Donald Trumps favor saying he can not be banned for his actions on january 6, the court also laying out what it would take for someone to be banned from running and who needs to act and make that happen. That decision, setting up a huge week in politics with donald trump hoping to knock out his last competitor for the republican nomination. As joe biden sets the stage for his own Reelection Campaign with what could be the most accordance speech of his reelection. And a landmark day in reproductive rights for women as Birth Control ships to stores where it could be available without a prescription for the First Time Ever in the us, we are following these major developing stories and many more all coming in right here to Cnn News Central one of the unprecedented legal questions looming over the 2024 election has been resolved today, the Supreme Court ruling nine to zero, that donald trump should stay on the colorado ballot and on the ballot in any state that it is disqualified him based on the 14th amendments insurrectionist ban. The Supreme Court case concern colorado specifically, but maines top election official has now formally restored trumps eligibility in that state. As a consequence of this ruling. As for weather the former president engaged in insurrection is correct. Supreme Court Justices sidestep that issue. This all amounts to an unequivocal win for former President Trump. And it comes on the eve of Super Tuesday when hes trying to lock down the republican nomination. Lets bring in cnn chief Legal Correspondent paula reid. Paula, get us up to speed. On this historic decision. Its historic indeed, this is the biggest election related decision from the high court in a quarter century. And its coming just hours before Super Tuesday. And here, the Unanimous Court found that colorado cannot remove former President Trump from its ballot based on the socalled insurrectionist ban that a second because in three of the 14th amendment of the constitution, that bans insurrectionists from holding office. The court wrote, quote, because the constitution makes congress, rather than the states responsible for enforcing Section Three against federal Office Holders and candidates. We reverse the colorado Supreme Court we conclude that states may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office, but states have no power under the constitution to enforce Section Three with respect to federal offices, especially the presidency know boris, they wrote how they were concerned that if each state was able to enforce Section Three on its own, it create what they described as a patchwork and result in chaos. And they said that is not what the constitution intended here. Now its interesting for justices. It did offer Concurring Opinions. This was a unanimous decision before justices insisted that some of what they sit here went a little bit too far that they would not have required congress to pass legislation. You see, here, you have the three liberal justices. They issued their concurrence. Justice, Amy Coney Barrett, also issuing her own concurrence, not going quite as far as the liberal justices not wanting to side with their language, but Holding Similar in spirit. And notably, her language talked about bringing the political rhetoric brig down a notch, right . Tell us more about that. Yeah, it was so interesting to hear what she had to say because the one hand she said what matters here is that we are unanimous and she talked about the time in which this case is arriving at the high court, right . This is a time of heightened political tension. Its a case dealing with trump. We didnt even hear his name uttered in the oral arguments for good reason, and she talked about how really what the American People need to know is that this was unanimous, but she also talked about how the court has settled a politically charged issue and that this is a moment where they should turn the National Temperature down, not up. Thats interesting, boris, because this is because what the Supreme Court does, right . They take on contentious issues and there may be a moment right. Where shes in a position where she has to turn the temperature up, not down sort of interesting to see how that particular quote, ages, which is right about the moment and the larger spirit that shes trying to capture, which is look, we agreed on the crux of the decision even though we would not have gone as far as hes trying to emphasize is that this was a bipartisan decision. Yeah, its fascinating given the sort of national view, the unpopularity of the Supreme Court right now, paula reid, thanks so much for the update. Lets actually go to cnns Kristen Holmes because shes tracking the former president s reaction out of florida. Kristen donald trump today, taking a victory lap, walk us through what he said yeah, boris, one thing to note here is that he went into this feeling very optimistic. He and his team believed that this ballot case was one of the strongest legal cases that his team had. And so its no surprise that u1 and that they are doing a victory lap here. He said that he was praising the Supreme Court. He said they worked really we hard. And then he said it was a unifying factor, but almost quickly after that, he started talking about democrats and how this was a democratic witch hunt. And all of his various legal trials, of course, as we have reported, they are not linked and they are not at the hands of President Joe Biden, but something he has continued to say, but take a listen to what he said about this ruling. They work long, they worked hard, and frankly, they worked very quickly on something that will be spoken about 100 years from now and 200 years from now, the voters can take the person out of the race very quickly but a court shouldnt be doing that. And the Supreme Court, so that very well. And i really do believe that while be a unifying factor again, that unifying factor part there. But the other part of this is that Donald Trumps team feels really good about where his legal cases stand right now. And thats because the Supreme Court did agree to take up that Immunity Claim to listen to arguments on that. And part of the reason they feel so good about that, yes, they want to present this president ial kennedy claim, but the other part of that is because they want to delay that trial in federal trials, as long as possible. And we do know that this is going to do that because they are going to hear this in april, late april, that its likely you wouldnt get decision until roughly around june delaying the trial even further. And if you talk to trumps team, they believe that those trials arent going to happen at all until after the november election, something that theyve been really working towards sense. All of these indictments came down yeah, a lot to watch for in the trump legal space. Kristen holmes. Thank you so much. Briana. All right. Lets bring in Anthony Michael christ, who specializes in the 14th amendment. Hes a Constitutional Law Professor at Georgia State university and listen in many ways, this was the expected outcome, but how are you reacting to it . Well, i think its somewhat surprising that the court went as far as it did to not just say that colorado decision was wrong, but to say that the only way you can enforce this provision of the 14th amendment is through Express Statutory Enactments by congress. So its kind of taking a vestigial part of the constitution and almost reading it out of the constitution in a way, at least as a practical matter, is it clear you mentioned it would be obviously congresss role. Is it clear to you how exactly congress would go about enforcing Section Three of the 14th amendment as the majority of opinion says, that it should what that would look gleich yeah, that would get messy, i think so the way it worked to some degree in the 1800s when the, when the aftermath of the civil war during reconstruction is that there were ways to file warrants with courts in order to get ritz and basically have courts throw people out of office who are eligible in the first place there were certain other kinds of criminal convictions that would have a disqualification attached to that and that might have been that might be a way that congress could, could do it again and use some of those reconstruction era laws as models Going Forward. And also, they technically could pass legislation just to the fact that donald trump and certain other named individuals, Congress Finds engaged in insurrection or rebellion in there for our ineligible and pass specific legislation to certain people. So theres a number of different ways that congress could do that. But the likelihood of that happening is zero. The three liberal justices and yes, this was a 90 decision to be clear, there were four justices who wrote Concurring Opinion separately. You had Amy Coney Barrett writing for herself and then you had judges Sotomayor Kagan and jackson writing won their opinion starts actually with a quote from the chief justice john roberts, pulling this from the dobbs case that overturned roe v. Wade, quote, if it is not necessary to decide more to dispose of a case than it is necessary not to decide more. I wonder what you thought when you were reading their Concurring Opinion and that was the first thing in it well i think theres certainly tying this decision into the broader legitimacy issues at the court has faced, particularly in wake of Dobbs Decision but its also something that i think is important. At least two to understand the perspective of these particular justices who i think might have wanted a vehicle absent of your specific legislation for federal courts to enforce this provision of the 14th amendment against particular candidates Going Forward, rather than waiting for congress to act, so the thrust of the opinion here is that state actors cant make these federal candidate basically decisions, right . Or a judge . The qualifications of individuals for federal office, though they could for state office. But i think these justices may be or may have wanted some room for the federal courts to be able to enforce this absent express congressional legislation. Yeah, it was interesting that those those floor were on the same page with that, but not on the same page with their concurrence hurrying opinions. And you saw Justice Barrett in her Concurring Opinion to that point emphasize the areas of agreement the court she writes, has settled a politically charged issue in the volatile season of a president ial election, particularly in this circumstance, writings on the court should turn the National Temperature down on not up. Did you read that as a bit of a referendum on the other Concurring Opinion well, it seemed to be kind of shot across the bow and a way a job to her colleagues on the left i think what we really need to understand here is that this is perfect perhaps the most important Supreme Court term for american democracy since reconstruction of course, we had this case. We also have the president ial immunity case coming up. Theres a number of january 6 cases coming up as well and so theres a lot on the docket for the Supreme Court in terms of protecting american democracy, establishing norms for the rule of law and dealing with january 6 defendants. And the way federal law has been applied to them. And so certainly i think Justice Barretts position is that given how highly polarizing and salient these issues are, she wants the American Public to have trust in the court, but i think certainly as all this things are with the Supreme Court, there are political in nature, and certainly i dont think that the political unrest and the controversy thats surrounded this case and similar cases will go away anytime soon. Yeah. Certainly not. It was pretty fascinating to read that Anthony Michael price, thanks for being with us thank you. Boris. So that Supreme Court ruling, as we mentioned, comes on the eve of Super Tuesday, the biggest primary de this election cycle voters in 15 states and American Samoa will cast ballots that could go a long way in shaping the november election ballot. And it could be The Last Stand for Nikki Haley Haley so far, shes just 11 primary the dc contests that was held this weekend thats not really enough to get close to donald trump was on a clear path to the republican nomination meantime, President Biden spent the weekend at camp david fine tuning his State Of The Union speech that hes set to deliver on thursday. Its a chance for him to highlight what hes done in office so far and make his pitch to americans for another term lets discuss this now with Christiane Ramos, founder and principal of autonomy strategies, and a former spokesperson for the congressional hispanic caucus, also with us republican strategist and former Senior Adviser for tim scotts president ial campaign. Matt gorman. Matt as the resident republican on our panel your reaction to Donald Trumps victory lap earlier, weve talked a lot about how voters might perceive potential legal loss. His convictions. This is a legal victory. How does this work out for a couple of things. Im not totally surprised the way it turned out. Nine nothing. I think it was important i think when it comes to convictions, i think of late weve seen trump winning pretty consistently by about two to four points in most national polls, headtohead against joe biden. That tends to flip if it is a conviction. Now thats a hypothetical. The tough part about it is foam, somebody who does campaigns hard to pull hypotheticals like for example, a week before the access Hollywood Tape in 20 16, if he were to pull voters, describe what trump said on the tape. Youd likely see a very big shift and obviously it kinda comes back to normal. So i think its hard right now to pull hypotheticals, run convictions. But today, a big win for the Trump Campaign yeah. And, you know, i wonder what you think about this as youve been observing this, you know what i think he got off on a technicality. Right . They did not exonerate him for attacking the capitol on january 6. Thats the real problem for this guy politically, this is a candidate who was running for Major Political party who led an insurrection at our capitol that led to the death of police officers. This is something the Supreme Court wouldnt even touch because its so controversial and radioactive. What do you think that does for moderate voters for independent voters, this is a very, very badly damaged candidate. They see im to say its not up to the states to determine that. And i wonder where you think things go from there then. Well, congress i think is now going to be taking the baton. I heard jamie raskin saying that democrats are going to be looking for ways to work on some legislation that would allow them to take him off about look, the bottom line again you dont want a candidate who has been caug