But we're still waiting on the three hunt highly consequential ones

That we have been talking about for weeks now former president Trump's claimed that he has immunity from prosecution for actions

He took as president the case concerning whether January 6 defendants can be charged with obstruction of a proceeding under that specific law and third emergency room

Abortions, let's get right to CNN Supreme Court analyst Joan Biskupic and Joan all of these huge decisions could come down within the next two

Weeks take us inside the the court as this anticipation mounts sure your phrase supreme suspense was exactly right and you know in addition to those big three that you mentioned they also have a

Major case on Second Amendment gun rights they have cases on social media regulation by governments they have

Environmental protection cases federal regulatory disputes so a lot of major

Questions that are you know have been lingering for years that have come to culmination this term

So you go in Jake at 10 o'clock Eastern Time and then the nine justices usually there are nine today Justice Alito

Wasn't on the bench the nine do sit and the chief says to whoever is going to read the majority

Opinions for the day has them speak

But as you know this is the season of dissents from the bench also because we have so many

Big cases out there that you know a lot is at stake

And this is the time of year when a justice who's dissenting

Wants to call more attention to his or her protest and will speak from the bench

We had that last week in the bump stocks ruling when Justice Sotomayor

Protested the majority's decision to invalidate a federal regulation that prohibited buns bump stocks as machine guns

And you know there is just a lot of anticipation in the room sometimes

Relatives and friends of the justices come often a spouse will show up today Justice Kavanaugh's parents were there so you know it's just everyone in and

Anticipation and we do not know which cases are going to come when until we get to the very last day which this year Jake should be potentially a week from next Friday or

Monday July 1st and the immunity decision just a huge one and obviously we'll have a

Significant impact on the presidential race and the timing of this decision can't be ignored it can't Jake

And I just want to remind everyone that the justices had had an opportunity to take up

Jacksmith's request to examine presidential immunity back in December special counsel Jack Smith

Representing the Department of Justice the American people had asked the Supreme Court to actually look then at former President Trump's claim that he should be shielded from criminal prosecution for the events after the 2020 election and the justices said no they decided to wait until

Oral arguments on April 25th, that's when they heard it

You know we obviously saw them struggling with some pretty important questions, but now they've already you know

Delayed

Many more weeks that if we get the ruling tomorrow or next week

We are right up against the November election in terms of a possible trial for former President Trump because you know

I think just the preparation for any kind of trial is going to take about three months if not more Jake so no matter how they rule I think the the window of opportunity for any kind of

Prosecution on behalf of the Department of Justice might be might be doing dwindling Jake

It's worth noting of course that next week marks two years

Since the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision which overturned Roe v. Wade and as the White House prepares to mark that day

They're also bracing for this emergency room abortion ruling

That's right

And you know just think of how much has changed in America since the justices struck down nearly 50 years of constitutional abortion rights

Some 14 states have completely banned abortion several other states have imposed very strict restrictions on

People's ability at women's ability to end a pregnancy and we've now even seen debates over in vitro

Fertilization all sorts of reproductive rights are now

You know now now really in doubt because of that decision and I think Jake no matter how the justices rule on that federal law

That's intended to ensure emergency room treatment and whether that even applies for potential abortions for

Mothers health and emergency situations in states like Idaho that ban abortion that will not be the last word on litigation coming from that 2022 decision to completely eliminate

Constitutional abortion rights. All right, CNN's Joe Biskupic. Thanks so much

Let's discuss this all with our legal panel have with me Ellie Honig Tom Dupree and Brandi Hardin Ellie if the presidential immunity decision

Ends up being last on the docket. So she said July something right July 2nd or something

What might the impact be on a potential trial? Do you think that's that's it?

No trial until after the election and obviously if Trump wins, he'll get rid of it

I think there's still a chance to get this trial in as Joan said the window is very quickly closing every day that passes

Of course makes a trial less likely before the election, but we're really talking about sort of small change at this point

I mean whether the decision comes down tomorrow or comes down ten days from from now

Doesn't make that big a difference. Here's what to watch though when the Supreme Court rules

I think what they're gonna do is say here's the test first time we're ever announcing this

Here's the test for presidential immunity if the court says here's the test and Trump fails

Then it goes back to the trial court and then I think they can squeeze in a trial before the election if they want

But if the court says here's the new test and now back to the trial court

You have to decide whether Trump meets that test or not

Then we're going back up the appeals chain and then there's no trial

Don't you think that's the second option is what they're gonna do?

I think the Supreme Court is gonna basically take a middle position between the two somewhat extreme positions

The parties have said the Jack Smith says there's basically no immunity

The Trump team says it's absolute immunity Supreme Court's gonna come down in the middle

I don't think they are going to get into the facts of this case and apply their newly stated

Constitutional standard to Trump in this case. We saw from the argument that they are operating at a 30,000 foot level

They are thinking grand questions of constitutional law

They're not going down to this kind of granular get-your-hands-dirty question of well

What the stuff Trump did falls on the official side or on the private side?

I think they're gonna announce high arching legal principles and then leave it to the lower courts to sort it all out

So Brandy in oral arguments on April 25th chief justice of the United States

John Roberts said quote as I read it

It says simply a former president can be prosecuted because he's being prosecuted

Why shouldn't we either send it back to the Court of Appeals or issue an opinion making clear that that's not the law?

Translate that into English for us

And and how do you think that for foretells what actually is gonna happen?

So I really just think they're saying look if a president's being prosecuted. He can be prosecuted. There is that that's obviously something

That's true. But what I really think here is that just like everyone said they are not gonna make a decision

There's gonna be new law that they come out with with respect to immunity and they're just gonna send it back to the courts

That's what's really gonna happen. And let me say this as a defense attorney. I think there is no chance

No possibility of a trial before the election if I'm now starting a new I have this file. I've been working on it

There is literally no possibility that I can get through everything and be prepared for a trial

Nobody how many people are on the team in order to be ready before the election?

So I think once again, he's gonna escape and there are not gonna be any more trials before the election

Ellie you have an article coming out in tomorrow in New York magazine on the scenario posed by a DC Court of Appeals judge

Which asked?

Quote could a president who ordered SEAL team six to assassinate a political rival and who was not impeached

Would he be subject to criminal prosecution the argument being?

From the Trump lawyers at that time during that argument that you have to be impeached before you can be prosecuted

Preach impeach and convicted. I think right you argue. It's way oversimplified. So yeah

I think that moment was the most memorable moment from all the Trump arguments, right?

Who could forget it the answer that Trump Donald Trump's lawyers gave was outrageous wrong reckless and dangerous

The problem is you have to go beyond that

I am convinced the Supreme Court is going to reject this theory that

Anyone can only ever be indicted a president if he's first been impeached and then removed that will never happen

The courts gonna say no, that's ridiculous

But we don't have we can't end there because then the courts gonna have to say well

Here's what the standard is. And that's where I think we get into what we've been talking about

So it's not as easy as just saying, of course, you can't kill in a political rival

Of course, they're gonna reject this what's taking so long what's taking so long is they're trying to articulate the standard for the first time

In American history and then they're gonna have to have that applied through the trial court. So it's much more complicated

What do you think the standards gonna be?

I suspect this court will try to draw some sort of line between official conduct and private conduct

Well does supervising elections count as?

Well, I mean I think Jack Smith would have a pretty strong argument to say that the president doesn't really have any formal

Constitutional role in the election process

That's something that our framers basically delegated to the state state legislatures and the like not the president of the United States

So I think under that test

I think President Trump would have a difficult time trying to get out and claim immunity for that type of conduct

The other thing I want to say is with regards to Chief Justice Roberts quote

I think that actually is fairly

Significant because as we all know the chief sits right in the middle of a court and what he says from the bench

Exactly and so when he questions

I interpreted what he said is basically questioning the DC Circuit the lower courts rationale where they

Rejected any sort of immunity and the chief basically found that reasoning to be circular

So what that tells me is that is exceedingly likely that the Supreme Court is going to reverse

What the lower court said and recognize some sort of immunity the scope yet to be determined, right?