A consequential when the former president just touting the Supreme Courts unanimous ruling saying that states cannot kick him off the 2024 primary ballot really capitol riot. How the justices explained their decision and how it might impact states heading into Super Tuesday PlusVice PresidentKamala Harris, turning up the pressure sure. On israel calling for an immediate ceasefire in gaza. New talks happening today at the white house. As the us begins airdropping food into the enclave and it is one of aviations biggest mysteries. Now, nearly ten years after Malaysia Airlines flight 370 disappeared, theres a renewed push to find the missing plane why the malaysian government says it may reopen the case were following these major developing stories and many more all coming in right here to Cnn News Central thanks so much for joining us this this afternoon on Cnn News Central, Boris Sanchez alongside Brianna Keilar in washington, dc. The big headline this afternoon, donald trump is not disqualified. The Supreme Court ruling unanimously to keep trump on the colorado primary ballot, putting to rest a months Long National debate about the 14th Amendment. And its insurrectionist ban in a nine nothing decision, the justices ruled that states could not unilaterally remove trump or any president ial candidate from the ballot. Yeah, its the Supreme Courts biggest foray into president ial politics since 2000 bush gore dispute. And moments ago the former president took a victory lap just one day before Super Tuesday when 16 primaries will take place, including colorados notably, we have seen an anchor and chief legal analysts, laura coates at the Supreme Court for us, we have cnn senior Supreme Court analyst Joan Biskupic and washington. Laura take us through this decision. Its a very consequential one, of course, brianna and boris, why it could weve been waiting for this for over a month now and arguably for many months, im would say even since january 6, when even the impeachment hearing, because russians were about whether or not the insurrectionist ban would actually apply to donald trump. While we see now the Colorado Supreme The Court said, yes, it shouldnt be ibs qualified. But when it came down to this Supreme Court behind me, they said no, a state is not responsible or should not be in a position that is a president United States, they can focus on a state office, for example, but not a federal office. Now, this is a nine nothing decision, but it does does have some inconsistency in the sense of a concurring opinion, at least three justices sided together and a concurrence at another, Amy Coney Barrett to suggest that no, we may all have the same conclusion here that has reached saying that he could not be as qualified, but as how far you need to go, thats the real issue here. Now the how much further this is the point of contention tension, the three socalled liberal justices saying, look, we can all agree theres a Patchwork Issue. The Patchwork Issue happening here, meaning that every Single Person every different state cannot have their own individual state laws of how one reaches the conclusion here. And therefore, it would call chaos into, into effect. But they said he just stopped there, not go far up to that, Congress Actually do anything more to change the way they operate for Section Three laura, given the political environment that were in, and obviously the Supreme Court is looking at unfavourability ratings that are historically low. How significant is it that the core on the overarching issue came to a unanimous decision well, they obviously wind to have a kind of an offramp. They dont want to wade into politics. Of course, he talked about bush v. Gore. We know about how for anyone whos older to remember what a hanging chad is, they know why they dont want to weigh into these issues. But this isnt matter of when theyre almost saying wed like to not wait in by having the voters actually decide the issue, keeping him on the ballot and others that actually dont talk about just this case. They talked about more broadly what role a state ought to have versus congress. But theyre not immune to the discussions. They know that tomorrow Super Tuesday, many of them made themselves have remembered voting at least one justice neil gorsuch, who is from colorado river, was quite well to the ballot is actually tomorrow. And having bush, i mean, it could be having trump on that ballot, you have others who are part of the bush v. Gore litigation. And also remember where its like to have them weighing into political matters. They didnt want to be seen as being political, but good luck on that one. Youve got the ethical issues, youve got the issues of conflicts of interests, and now you had the idea of the day before, a very consequential election that theyve decided to weigh in in this way, theres still more ahead though, related to donald trump yeah, theres just no way around it when it comes to getting into the fray and politics here joan, something that was interesting here was that there were two concurring opinions. You had everyone agreeing unanimously on the ruling, but they didnt agree completely on the i guess brought oddness of the ruling. So what does that split tell you and its not just for four justices, you actually had three having a concurring opinion, one, having a concurring opinion. Justice barrett . Thats right. It does undercut the idea that this is a court that you know, unanimously can understand what was at issue here. I dont want to take away from the 90 ruling that donald trump has to remain on the ballot. But theres a very fundamental difference on how far the court should even even go on in terms of how Section Three of the 14th Amendment would be enforced. Thats the provision that was at issue here. The antiinsurrectionist provision. And what the majority said was that only congress, through specific legislation can enforce that and the justices who concurred, at least the three liberal said what about if there was a prosecution of someone who had been in their words and oathbreaking insurrectionists. And justice, Amy Coney Barrett agreed with the three liberals that it shouldnt just be specific congressional legislation so that should enforce this antiinsurrectionist ban. But she was very tempered in her approach and she took a shot at those liberals who, in writing up their concurring opinion, really tried to say, you majority have gone too far. They invoked the dissenting opinion from bush v. Gore i add, as if to say, you are youre overstepping here in terms of your rationale and justice. Amy coney barrett, who sided with the three liberals in terms of trying to chastise the majority for going too far. Said, in my judgment, this is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency. The court has settled at 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, not up but the three liberals, democratic appointees, or not going to keep that temperature down, especially in a case like this, it involves donald trump yeah, interesting language there from Amy Coney BarrettJoan Biskupic, laura coates. Thank you both so much. Lets get some reaction from trump world. We heard the former president speaking just moments ago, cnns Kristen Holmes has been tracking the latest from west palm beach, florida. Kristen trump took a victory lap here saying that he respects the Supreme Court. Im wondering how this is its being received by the trump campaign. And how they think the court might rule on the question of immunity yeah, of course, donald trump respects the Supreme Court when he wins and 89 to nothing vote, which is essentially what he said. He went on a radio show which we didnt play, where he said he was honored to be a nine to nothing vote that it was a big win for america. It well see what happens if he doesnt win in the Supreme Court. Now thank point out here as we talked to the campaign one that claim of immunity, donald trump himself is obsessed with this idea. He has become incredibly fixated on it. He talks but it all the time as we have played some of his clips odder, even pivoted almost immediately after this when to Start Talking about that Immunity Claim. Now, when i talked to various as theres an allies, they dont believe that that is as strong of an argument as this was this ballot case. They really went into this competent that they were going to win. They believe that they had solid background, legal standing in this argument. A little bit squishier when you talk to them about this Immunity Claim. Now, the one thing that they are all very happy he is the fact that the Supreme Court actually agreed to take this up because they believe that this will likely push that trial beyond the november election. Now, of course, we havent confirmed that were just talking about what the trump team themselves believed. But if you talk to you Supreme Court reporters and scholars, they believe that we wouldnt get a decision this until june on the Immunity Claim and that would likely continue to delay delay, delay that trial, which has been the big effort of donald trump and his legal team to try and get this pushed beyond the november elections so the donald trump can, if this happens when the presidency and then essentially dismiss all of these cases obviously there is another outcome there where he doesnt win, but that is what they have been focused on, is this delay tactic. And that is where they are very confident that theyre, that theyre avenues that they have exhausted, have really been working in their favor all right. Kristen holmes. Thank you for that perspective and were joined now by an attorney on the team that brought this lawsuit to remove trump from the ballot, the primary ballot there in colorado, Mario Nicholas is with us now mario, whats your reaction to the ruling . Well, first of all, obviously were disappointed. They didnt win everything. But i want to be clear. This and no way exonerates former President Trump from being an oathbreaking insurrectionists. The Supreme Court took great pains to avoid addressing that at all and simply kick the can down the road. Thats really what this opinion says. Oh, well, this is still out there and this is still an issue and congress should deal with it as effectively what they said. And i think that when you compare the fact that it took a month for the Supreme Court to issue with 13 page opinion well, we had a hundredpage Lower Court Opinion and 103 page colorado Supreme Court opinion that went into the evidence and analyze it, and found that he wasnt oathbreaking insurrectionists that still stands. All they do to say, well courts and state courts dont have the jurisdiction to do that. They had no way said that he was exonerated from what he he did on january 6 there. And i know youve read them some very interesting concurring opinions that were written here one by justice Amy Coney Barrett, the other by justices Sotomayor Kagan and jackson, all foreseen will they agree with the ruling . The other five justices decide more than the case requires them to decide what did you think about that yeah. I think its extremely interesting and that probably has to do also with why the opinion was so short and so brief and i think that they arent concerned about where we go from here. And ill be blunt, i think that the decision was an act of cowardice and a lot of ways and date did not want to deal with the primary issue of whether there was an insurrection, whether donald trump engaged in it so again, they kick the can down the road. My concern is that that act of cowardice today will lead to bloodshed in the future. It will lead to violence in the future. And i think some of these justices wanted to at least give some sort of ability to stop that from happening by saying, hey, look, there are other avenues which this could go through, such as a conviction is it clear to you how congress would go about enforcing Section Three of the 14th Amendment if it requires a vote of the full congress say following an impeachment and conviction for insurrection, were following a criminal conviction for him insurrection you know, i think its not entirely clear and i think that was some of the debate that youre having between the the the justices who joined the majority and those who concurred. But wrote separately. Because i do not think its clear. And furthermore, i dont think its clear that it requires each man and conviction by the senate. In fact, thats not even brought into here because hes a former president. Theres no pitchman of him at this point. I think the concern is, well, what do we do is it is it something where congress has to pass legislation now and we can then bring a case immediately, or is it something where on january 6, 2025 there they could actually proceed and say, hey, look, were proceeding right now and saying he is not eligible to hold office. I think those are some of the concerns that i have with the Court Choosing to kick the can down the road and kick it across the yard into congresss yard is now congress has sitting on this live hand grenade that is likely to blow up sometime between now and next january what mario it is so important to hear your perspective today, so thank you for being with us. Thank you for your time and thanks for having me. Mario nicholas. We do appreciate it. And ahead this hour on Cnn News Central, its a sign of just how dire the situation is in the gaza strip. One of the main cemeteries there has reportedly run out of room to bury the dead with new bodies piling up daily, coming up well have the latest on Ceasefire Talks Plus renewed hope for one of the worlds most puzzling aviation mysteries. What malaysian officials now say about the disappearance of mh370 and after voters passed a radical drug policy legalizing the use of cocaine, heroin, and other hard drugs. Oregon lawmakers are hitting the brakes this is the big dam that dough if you have this, consider adding this an aarp Medicare Supplement insurance planned from unitedhealthcare Medicare Supplement plans help by paying some of What Medicare does. And let you see any dr. Any specialists anywhere in the us who accepts medicare patients . So if you have this consider adding this call unitedhealthcare today for your free decision guy dont abandon me. A second term, we could all agree i legally have to read whats in the prompter. So here we go in the news post Comedy Centrals the daily show. Tonight on Comedy Central its odd how in an instant, things can transform out of into free fall im glad i found stability amidst it all. Go. Standing the test of time my name is cody arcci. Now im erica and were firstgeneration ranchers from Central Texas in because of tiktok were able to show people from All Over The World where their food and fiber come from. We have door per sheep and we have beef cattle for the sole purpose of going into the food chain. We use tiktok as a tool to inform people of what we do. And while we do it, theres just a plethora of knowledge and information swapping going on there tiktok is helping us protect this way of life for future generation. Okay, yeah, we got orders coming starting is never easy. A star now, eight months pregnant, thats a different story. I couldnt slow down. We were starting a business from the ground people were showing up, left their rides. And so did our Business Needs they chased a car, made it easy. When you go for Something Big like this, your kids said it and they believe they can do the same for an unlimited 1. 5 cashback on every purchase for the chase, inc. Business card, make more of whats yours is to being a young man wont be cowboy well, and against is alice staff ive got back to my roots weve come from a long ladder, calvin, my grandfather, my great grandfather, my arent being rode horses when i see all of us that hit on his ranch i see how far our legacy can go. Uh, you know no, its look in the hotels. Com asked to find we werent perfect somewhere beautiful and healthy looking eyes. It shouldnt be a compromise. Lum