it is 10:00 eastern. i'm ana cabrera reporting from new york. more critical supreme court decisions just moments away. we have a dozen cases left, but the public did get a preview of one of them after a stunning supreme court error. a document on moyle versus the u.s., the case concerning on idaho's strict law and whether doctors gave the green light to provide emergency care to provide care to the woman if the woman's life is at risk. this appears to be the decision or at least a draft of it. they got ahold testify before it was removed from the court's website, and if it holds it indicates the court will allow emergency room doctors in idaho to perform emergency abortion care. nbc's ken delainian is outside the supreme court and nbc correspondent lisa rubin is here with me in new york, and we're also joined by former acting solicitor general neal katyal and an women's advocate. thanks for joining us. what more do we know about this document that was apparently accidentally posted? >> yeah, good morning, ana. absolutely shocking that this happened two years after the unprecedented release of the dobbs decision, with millions of dollars being sent to update its cyber security and all the court is saying about it issuing a brief statement acknowledging that the court's publication unit inadvertently released a document and the decision in this case will be released in due course. we don't know if this was a draft opinion or actual opinion, although common sense suggests the most likely situation says it is the actual opinion. someone was getting ready to post it and hit the wrong button. on procedural grounds this throws the case back to the lower courts which is a victory, a partial victory for abortion rights advocates because it would put in place a ruling that says that the federal law requiring basic emergency room care across the country trumps, overcomes this idaho abortion ban and perhaps the abortion bans of other states, and that's a significant interesting pullback, really the second one on a major ruling. you know, you had this brewing gun decision that said that there had tobin analog for any gun regulation in american history, that the founders would have had to understand it and recently we had the decision that said actually, no. it's okay to ban domestic violence -- people convicted of domestic violence from possessing a gun, even though the founders viewed domestic violence much differently. that a pretty significant pullback, and now if this abortion opinion is as we believe it might be, it's a pretty significant pullback from the dobbs decision written by one of the most conservative members of the court that says there's no right to abortion in the constitution and that matter is left for the states. except in this case, according to this decision if it's the right one. it's not left to the states in every case. there's a federal law that overcomes the strict state abortion law so a lot for legal scholars to chew on here, ana. >> we want to be careful because it wasn't the official decision that was given by the court. that's out there, and we're still waiting on those official decisions being released today to come through. we did get one. it wasn't one of the big ones. i know we're reading in to see more about that particular case, but coming back to the accidental posting of this law involving idaho's abortion ban, lisa. this is the second major abortion decision that has been sort of put out there in a botched way. what do you make of it? how does that happen? >> i don't know how it happens, but one way that it potentially happens is that the opinion is ready for publication, was handed off to the court's publication office which we know was involved in the mess-up here based on the court's spokesperson statement yesterday, saying the publications office inadvertently posted this. how then does the publications office get ahold of this opinion? in all likelihood there's some staging going on here. in other words, they are in possession of what is likely -- i want to say likely because we don't know a final opinion, and yet not yet ready for release to the public. i think the biggest takeaway that i have from this, ana, is we have long understood that the supreme court releases opinions when they are good and ready to do so. tradition lit chief justice decides when an opinion is good and ready with the loose ascent of the other justices. what appears to have happened here is that this opinion who is either ready for publication yesterday because it has yesterday's date on it, on the first page, or perhaps in the coming days, and it was inadvertently put in a place where even a web program could have found it. in other words, i'm not sure that bloomberg had a reporter who saw it on a website the way that ken and i keep hitting refresh so much as perhaps a bot or a scraper find this opinion on a non-public website or url that we wouldn't have known where to look and took that down, and so that suggests to me the court has a strategy for releasing opinions, and that's contrary to what we have always understood, that the court is just releasing opinions when they are finished. this suggests that's not at all what's happening, and it's consistent with prior reporting about how the court's internal machinations record. you'll recall jody cantor of "the new york times" that they agreed to hear the dobbs case months before the publication on the website. >> i understand that we got one of the semi-big ones that we've been waiting on, involving purdue pharma and the sackler family. what do we know about this decision. >> ana, i've said that this decision would kill the $6 billion settlement with sacha family and big farm ark. the justice department had actually come in and oppose this settlement as well as other parties, and now the supreme court is saying that in fact this settlement cannot go forward under these provisions. that is a huge deal. a lot of states were counting on this money. a lot of plaintiffs were counting on this money, those advocating for it said this was the best deal that they were going to get from the sackler family which, remember, is accused of knowingly peddling opioids to millions of people even after it became clear that they were addictive. they, of course, deny wrongdoing. made billions of dollars from their ownership with purdue pharma. there was some accountability through the civil court process and now apparently the supreme court has blocked the ruling on this. >> neal katyal, we know the district court -- sorry, forgive me. i'm going to go to lisa with this. the district court had initially ruled against the deal. it was the appeals court that then overturned that, and now we have this decision by the supreme court. any surprise by this decision? >> in some senses no, because what this deal hinged on was a release to individual sackler family members who are not themselves declaring bankrupty, and by giving them a release it would mean that anybody who was a claimant here couldn't sue those individual sackler family members for their liability with respect to the opioid crisis. there were a number of people who cried foul saying even if this $6 billion deal is what the purdue pharma lawyers and the sackler family lawyers are saying is the best we can do, it's still not fair to release them when they are not giving us a full accounting of their assets, putting all of their assets on the table and certainly not declaring themselves bankrupt. it's a get out of jail free card, metaphorically because there's no criminal liability for these family members. the original department from the department of justice there should be no deal if the sackler family members were being released in exchange for not what is traditionally involved in the bankruptcy declaration. >> i want to go to the professor of law at the university of michigan, leah, to get your take on this decision and the potential impact on, again, families who have been really impact in a deep way by the opioid crisis as well as it when it means for other bankruptcy cases. >> so it's a really interesting lineup among the justices. justice kavanaugh dissented and was joined with the chief justice together with justice sotomayor and justice kagan and said this decision is devastating for the hundreds of families who relied on this settlement in order to get some relief from the opioid crisis and the devastation that it brought. the dissent also notes that all the 50 state attorneys general had signed on to this plan because they thought this was only chance of relief. as lisa noted, part of the impetus for the entire bankruptcy case is that the sacklers allegedly drained money from the company and effectively held a settlement hostage and would only agree to it in the event that claims against them individually were released, and what the dissent says is, look there, isn't going to be any settlement. these victims are not going to get any relief until the sacklers are allowed to negotiate an agreement under which they themselves individually cannot be sued, and so what this does is it blows up a settlement that was going to give some money to the states and individuals who were victimized by the opioid crisis. >> and let me go to or ma meesh who has been reading in on this particular ruling. what more do you have for us? >> it's interesting to read justice kavanaugh's dissent here writing in part decision is wrong on the law, devastating for more than 100,000 opioid victims and their families so what justice kavanaugh is saying there might not be a second deal, the deal that shielded the sackler family from having liability, that hurt opioid relief victims. it's interesting in this deal. what's interesting is that we talk about the opioid epidemic and how it impacted families. the sackler family has become well known in pop culture talking about the impact of the family saying that the bankruptcy code doesn't support the way this deal was structured. justice kavanaugh in his dissent said at the end of the day who may need the supreme court and other justices concurring in this, maybe the people they think will get some relief will be hurt by this court's decision today, ana. >> lisa, what does this mean exactly for the families that thought they had a deal. does it mean a whole new settlement needed to be work out and how long could that take? >> it could take months. the reorganization plan was stayed and based on this ruling the organization plan has to be renegotiated because what the court is saying you can't offer a release to people who are non-debtors, meaning people who don't go through the bankruptcy process themselves without consent to all the claimants in the deal. i want to be clear that while all 50 state attorneys general agreed to the deal, there were individual family members all across the country crying fowl saying even though $6 billion looks like a whole lot of money, given what the sackler family did to the company, given that they allegedly drained $11 billion from the company, almost 75% of its value, this was never a fair settlement, even if in the negotiation of a deal this is what everyone represented was the best they were going to get. they may get better now that the supreme court has said you can't release these people, right? if these people know now that they can be sued civilly by the claimants, they might be willing to come to the table with a greater amount of money based on this ruling. >> maybe there's a better deal to be worked out. let me turn back to the other decision that we've been discussing and awaiting right now. we're still waiting for the supreme court to say we're done releasing decisions today, so we may still get one of these big ones, the one involving the idaho abortion case or presidential immunity or january 6 rioters' charges, but we do have at least an inkling of where the case involving the idaho abortion ban may be headed, neal, so let's talk more about that one because there was this opinion that was put on the court's website, as we've been discussing, that has been taken down. we don't know exactly what happened there that was a draft. if it was a decision that we we're just waiting for them to finalize and put out there, and the fact that it got out there and what we know of it, are you surprised by the outcome, number one? and number two, how much more pressure is there now for the supreme court to release that decision? >> before getting to the abortion thing, i want a macro picture on what we're bringing this morning. we've seen two 5-4 decisions written by justice gorsuch. in one justice gorsuch writes, this is the ozone case, and he's joined by thomas, alito and -- and the chief, thomas' line-item veto and justice cav vaug. justice barrett writes the ascent wrints the three more liberal justices and in the other case justice gorsuch is joined by justice thomas, barrett, alito and ketanji brown jackson. you've seen interesting crisovers. the dissent was joined by the chief just sent and two of the more liberal justices, sotomayor and kagan. we're seeing something interesting in the early opinions. we're now at a point where the chief justice is announcing the opinions he's written. we're towards the end of today. i suspect we'll only get one more opinion. with respect to the abortion case, i think, you know, look, technological mistakes happen in every big institution. i don't think this says something particular about the competence of the supreme court which is what a lot of the critics are saying. i mean, to meet criticism of the court is it's not that they are incompetent or don't know what they are doing, it's that they know exactly what they are doing which is largely restricting our rights on things like abortion. in this particular case, it seems like they flinched a little bit and have said that this federal law will supercede idaho's very strict prohibition on abortion, so it's -- you know, if this draft opinion is the opinion of the court, it does look like it's, you know, some modest welcome relief for reproductive justice, but the bottom line is this is the same court that overturned "roe v. wade" and restricted abortion massively, far more than any time in our lifetimes, and it seems to me that's where the discussion should be. >> and if the decision is what we think it is based on what came out and was published on the court's website before taken down, it doesn't really decide the case on its merits. it simply says we took this case prematurely. let's take it down to make its way back up. so what would the decision mean, if it is what we think it is, for women and emergency room doctors in idaho? >> i mean, you're exactly right, ana. i mean, this decision -- to quote justice ketanji brown jackson dissent allegedly, reported dissent, she said this is not a victory. it is a delay, and what this means for women in idaho currently is they do have some temporary relief, but it's quite problematic that the court did not decide this case on the merits. they had a chance to address preemption. does the federal law protect women who need abortion access and emergency care across all 50 states? they did not do that. they kicked it back to the lower court, and this is really troubling because we already know that a trump hhs and a trump fda -- first, hhs, would rescind this law. project 2025 and trump's cronies and allies have laid out recommendations to rescind this law should trump become president. also, this is so similar to the medication abortion case we just heard where they, again, punt on -- they punted on a technicality, right, on standing. they did not address medication abortion, so once again we have a possibility of a trump fda removing authorization to medication abortion, an incredibly popular and majority of abortions in this country are done by medication abortion. so, again, we really believe what ketanji brown jackson lays out in her dissent, in this case which is this is shameful. the court had an opportunity to save women's lives, and they punted, and that is not okay. we have a lot of work to do. >> let me just quote briefly from her dissent, and she -- she actually concurs and then dissents. she concurs in the fact that this shouldn't necessarily go through, right, that the idaho side shouldn't be allowed to stand -- they shouldn't stay the lower court's ruling to allow that abortion ban to continue in all cases, including this emergency abortion care, but she also is dissenting this idea of just punting on the merits saying we should decide the merits right now, and then she says today's decision is not a victory for pregnant patients in idaho. it is delay while the court daudles and while people experience medical emergency positions they remain in precarious positions as doctors are kept in the dark about what the law requires. i want to bring in anthony coley works served as chief spokesman for attorney merrick garland. you were still working in the justice department when this law, the emergency treatment act was brought up, as something that the administration could use to try to navigate all of these state aboard laws that popped up after the dobbs decision was overturned. what are you thinking about how this has landed? >> i'm telling you as someone who was there there was zero hesitation in the biden justice department in bringing this lawsuit. that's because the federal law is really quite clear as it relates to if a woman with health conditions presents at a hospital that receives federal funding, then they must provide stabilizing treatment, including for an abortion. now what was so interesting to me about this, i'll just call it a draft opinion, a pre-published opinion, is how the justices got there, and i think -- i think neal katyal hit on something. he said these justices know exactly what they are do, and i think neal is absolutely right. i think justice amy coney barrett, when she wrote here and i'm going to read, that the court had miscalculated in a grant to take this case before the appellate court has weighed in, i think she reads the same newspapers that you and i read. i think she saw and the court saw all of the electoral results that have happened across this country, an every time now, ana, every time when abortion access is on the ballot, including in deep red states like kansas, it wins, and i think the court was deliberately trying to get itself outside of this box that it created for itself. it doesn't smell right how we got here. >> do you agree with that? >> i do. there's something odd about the fact that in order to hear this case there had to be a vote of at least four justices and now at least according to the document that was posted yesterday, there are six justices who are saying the case was, quote, improv bentley granted and needs to be dismissed with justice barrett's point made yesterday, she is trying to rationalize why they took the case in the first place and trying to rationalize now why, oops, they made a mistake and her rationale is because the cases have substantially shifted. that each party's position has been different now when it was when the case was first presented to the supreme court, but if you read her concurrence there's nothing about idaho's position that has changed since the court agreed to heart case in january of 2024. it is true that there were some concessions made by the solicitor general at oral argument on behalf of the united states, but justice barrett's overall rationale here, there's essentially less sunlight between the two sides than she previously understood just doesn't carry the day for me and smells, to anthony's point, kind of smells bad, like a post-hoc justification to try to legitimize the court when it was read closely >> i believe it was justice jackson's opinion that we're seeing that she kind of points out the