bringing my friends and family along for the ride from south dakota, wyoming and we ship antonella faso joining are crazy caravan. things are really he, not every step of the way this has gotta be a culinary adventure. are you guys all american road trip friday at nine on food network cnn news good morning. you were alive in the cnn newsroom. i'm jim acosta in washington, were following two major stories unfolding this hour at any moment, the supreme court will begin releasing a new round of critical decisions this term is filled with blockbuster rulings, including donald trump's claim of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution. and on those day before cnn's history four presidential debate, we have new reporting about the preparations going on right now inside the campaign's sources are telling cnn that donald trump's team wants him disciplined and focused on so-called kitchen table issues. we're also learning president biden will target trump directly. are sources say president will attack the former president's character and reminding voters of the chaos and volatility of trump's first term. let's begin with supreme court and the rulings that will be coming out at any moment. cnn chief legal analyst and former federal prosecutor laure coates, is here. laura, i mean we've been waiting for this big decision on immunity for donald trump based on some of the claims that he's been making, tell us about the importance of this case. and i guess give us some context as to why we're waiting so long. >> well, as supreme court justice neil gorsuch alluded to, this would be a decision for the ages be stepping back 10,000 foot view is should a president enjoy absolute immunity? can they just do whatever they want and not face any consequences? this is really the narrow question that the supreme court is going to be grappling with. you are right to think about why are we waiting so long? in fact, remember jack smith wanted this initially decided before even went to the dc court of appeals where we heard that infamous analogy about and hypothetical about whether you could order seal team six to commit a crime to assess, knit your political opponent and rival to which of course they were incredulous about the doubling down on that very point. but this is a monumental case that will decide for america really about the balance of power and about checks and balances. because if you have an unchecked executive and the he executive branch, what is the point of having these checks and balances? so it's really critical decision. we don't yet know what it's going to come of this, but i would be surprised if they were to say that he president had a blanket immunity. i'd also be surprised, however, if they were to articulate a list of different ways in which you could describe what official acts are. that's going to be the crux of this issue. what's an official act essentially an if you're doing something officially as the president, i'd say it should you actually enjoy that immunity, but they're not going to enumerate a list that would be wholesale. what you could do in the future. >> yeah, i mean, not a lot of folks are expecting this supreme court to just give president blanket immunity a blank check to do whatever they want. but this is a conservative super supermajority and i suppose you know, all bets are off terms of making predictions on what they might do. but there's also this other ruling that we're waiting on that pertains the january 6 and whether the defendants will face certain charges obstruction of congress and official acts of congress. that is also very important. >> what about your right? it'd be a fool's errand to try to truly predict what but they will do. and burke case, although we do think about different ideological blocks in these issues the second matter involves whether or not the prosecutors in the case interpreted a particular statutes so broadly to be able to draw an obstruction charge against january 6 insurrection or rider is going to the capital that de now, if the supreme cream court finds that it would be obstructive according to this narrow statute on these grounds, and they could ultimately throw out obstruction-related charges, rocket more than hundreds of people who have had this very charge against them. and guess what, donald trump has two obstruction charges against him. now, jack smith, it said that look, even if you haven't more narrow interpretation of a stack which constitutes what it means to obstruct a proceeding. it could still probably meet the standard for donald trump, whether that's true will be a different category, but we're waiting to hear these two things very important. they are essentially not true companion cases jam, where they are decided together, but they certainly are in the same universe for our purposes, yeah and jamie going gal elie honig are both with me as well. and jamie, i mean here we are. gosh, where we're almost a july and we haven't gotten to decision on this immunity issue. and, you know, it just goes to show you laura was talking about the other january 6 case. january 6 happened what almost four years ago, the attack on the capitol, we're still grappling playing with these legal issues that really go to the heart of this top tier of folks who are around donald trump. and the fact that we haven't really seen any of them pay any kind of a price or what took place on january 6. and what the supreme court might decide here is going to have a huge impact on whether we're going to actually see justice. 44 those folks at the top, your point about timing is really what's key about this decision former congresswoman liz cheney, in fact, a couple of weeks ago, wrote an op-ed asking the court to please move quickly on this expeditiously because once we see this decision it will have a big impact on whether special counsel jack smith can go ahead with the trial before the election and what is that mean? we'll americans get to here testimony from trump's inner circle, from his former chief of staff, mark meadows, from his former vice president mike pence from white house, counsel's simple one. fill been hirschman, who are all there, not only in the weeks leading up to january 6, but they were there on january 6 yeah. they know what trump did and did not do when the violence was going. and it is really critical from what we understand of the grand jury testimony and other evidence for voters to be able to hear that evidence before they vote in november? >> yeah, ellie, i want to get your take on that, too, but we should know to our viewers, we did get one a decision from the supreme court, very important one in la can comment on that one as well. the supreme court said the white house and federal agencies, such as the fbi, may continue to urge social media platforms to take down content. the government use as misinformation. this is viewed as a victory for the biden administration. technical, if not an important one? yes. so what do you think? let me talk about this case. yes. just came down the first one on today. so you may remember about a year or so ago, a group of republican state attorneys general and a group of internet users, social media users, sued the biden administration. they said, you are violating the first amendment when you were during covid primarily during covid, but other issues too, when you were reaching out to social media company saying you need to take this post down need to moderate this post. the question was, does that violate the first amendment, the supreme court has now found by a six to three ruling, not your usual, it's actually a cross ideological majority are saying that the people who sued do not have standing meeting state ags and people who may use twitter or facebook, you don't have enough of an injury from this to even bring the lawsuit. so they didn't even reach the first amendment question. the first amendment merits the supreme court just said six to three you're out of luck. this lawsuits, no good go back to the drawing board. is that kind of taking a pass on deciding the more key constitutional issues? it's a procedural off-ramp, but it matters. i mean, standing arizona record. you can't just bring a lawsuit because something bothers you or offends you. you have to be able to show some tangible injury and just to remind our viewers, we saw the mifepristone, the abortion medication decision last week. i think it was was also based on a lack of standing. so supreme court likes to take these off-ramps if they're there, especially when they get into messi issues, but for now, there's no first amendment violation in what the biden administration did. >> and jamie, i mean, this is also interesting as it pertains to the upcoming election campaign. we're in the middle of right now, that decision means that the department of homeland security may computer flag post to social media companies such as facebook and acts that it believes maybe the work of foreign disinformation agents seeking to disrupt this year's presidential race. >> so two things. one, i think a lot of parents are not so unhappy with this with this ruling, but these are the kinds of things it will be interesting to see an r debate tomorrow night, whether trump or biden bring this up, but no question. issues like this are going to have play out during the campaign at the ballot box another decision we're waiting for is the idaho abortion case, a reproductive rights case? i don't know that we're going to get that one today, but these are all things things that have more significance during the campaign. yeah. laura coates, i mean, the idaho abortion decision, when that comes down, could have massive implications across the country. >> it could this is a case where the court is trying to grapple with the idea that there are certain states that have abortion bans. but in those particular states are you still able as a medical provider to provide an emergency abortion? this is gonna be the crux of the issue. and whether trying to balance this, there's a whole lot of political implications of this very notion you're talking about state regulations compared to the overturning of roe v. wade and the dobbs decision were at the two-year anniversary since just monday, you have a presidential beit that is undoubtedly going to talk what reproductive rights more broadly. and this idea of what this tension would be between the medical community is an obligations and what the statute is requiring you to do highlights a big tension of the supreme court. do they want to be waiting into otherwise normally political matters? this is becoming increasingly so it's not just a matter of right? at this point in time, they're being viewed through the lens of politics. but this would be a very consequential decision in mind you, this is now the second case they'd be deciding since overturning roe v wade in this very term, the first one was involving the first drug in a two-drug regimen mifepristone for a medication, abortions are widely used drug for that purpose. and so this tells you a lot what about the decisions that they have made in the past that was not fulsome and comprehensive to anticipate and resolve these very matters. yeah, the dobbs decision i mean, huge repercussions across the country in ways that maybe even the supreme court justices did not imagine. >> jamie gain gl and elie honig. i mean, we're seeing that now. yeah. and what's really at stake with the abortion issue? i mean, we're talking about emergency room care. at what level do doctors have to provide that care? the federal regulations say if the mother's life is in danger or if it's necessary to stabilize the mother's health condition, idaho and other states say only if the mother's life is in danger, there's a huge i mean, it's literally a life or death difference there life or death. but think about some complications that are separated. there could be a complication where a mother could not get a family could not have another child. people come there are so many other medical serious medical complications that this cuts off because it's only if the mother's life is in danger. it was such an important point to raise on the politics. the bait will undoubtedly raise as point the conversation around reproductive rights and the conversation around abortion access has shifted away from the stereotypical notions of who people want to create a narrative of who seeking abortions. and then the idea of those who what are still wanting to have children and are desperate to do so, but are unable in this particular pregnancy that is shifted the politics of this in a way that i think was probably not anticipated politically by number of people. we remember hearing on our own airway is when you had different congressman saying, well, hold on his, the republican party going to be known as an thai ivf as anti family planning, as anti different aspects of it. so be sure to look for these conversations coming up about reproductive rights more broadly. yeah. i mean, it's raised all these issues and now you're seeing it play out in the states. i mean, people were worried about whether ivf is going to continue to be a legal option for families who want to have kids and evan perez is standing by as well. i want to go to you and get your reaction to what we're learning so far today well, jim, i think look the social media case, the case that the justice is just ruled on 63 on a pretty technical way. >> i think has really, really large implications for this election year. one of the things that happened happened over the last couple of years, certainly with republicans claiming that there was censorship and claiming that it was all because of the government. you saw some reluctance on the part of the fbi and some of the national security agencies of the united states trying to interact with social media companies to point out where they saw examples of foreign entities, foreign governments trying to influence the u.s. electorate with this >> does have essentially by throwing this lawsuit back and essentially saying that this was these state attorneys general from missouri, louisiana had no standing to bring this lawsuit. i think what it does is it's certainly allows the fbi to continue its work, which is very important part. of protecting this country, protecting voters from some of the activities of foreign intelligence services that are going to be very active over the next few months. so i think what you're going to hear over the next few days and certainly you heard it this morning from some of the surrogates of the former president. they're claiming that there's this huge era of, of, of censorship that going over the country, which is just not true but what this ruling does today is it certainly freeze up and allows the fbi to do its work that where they spot interference from foreign entities and foreign countries, they can call the social media companies pointed out to them. and those social media companies can make a decision of business decision that they can make on whether to remove certain posts on their on their platforms, jump right in for the younger viewers who were a little young back in 2016 i mean, by bipartisan senate intelligence committee report that came out on the 2016 election concluded that the russians were trying to influence the outcome of the 2016 election. they were trying to tell you have to have this kind of situation where, you know, the united states government and other interested parties obviously can go to the social media platforms and say, hey, you've got a lot of, you know, russian disinformation garbage out there. you might want to take that down. it could hurt the country jim, let me just say real quick. >> um, you know, one of the things that has happened over the last couple of years is sort of a redefinition of what censorship is i mean, if you look at the law, and obviously censorship comes from the government, right? and one of the things that you see in this ruling gears, that we're talking about social media companies essentially being responsible for managing their platforms. it's a business decision that it's their platforms and when the fbi says, hey, we think this might be rushing this information that doesn't in its government censorship and i think what, what, what i think this ruling helps is for us to sort of folk refocus on that aspect of how we protect the country and protect voters from that interference amperes great reporting as always, i want to go to paul are reading paula, get your reactions, everything that we're learning this morning, this is a significant decision and it could have had huge implications on social media platforms. >> i mean, which obviously play a big part and everybody's lives now, including the lives of our kids who were very impressionable yeah, absolutely. and as you and everyone is talking about the impact on the election, but what's a little surprising is there a lot of other outstanding questions here before the high court that could also impact the election. and we still don't have answers. here's a little bit of a surprise today. we only got two opinions. the justices, i guess they're just like us, maybe procrastinating a little bit because they still have ten outstanding opinions to release. and right now, we know that they will really sound likely tomorrow. and then on friday, the could do ten into days, but it appears likely that they may have to go in to the next week. those all little surprising. they had a similar but different case related to social media and specifically states that the passed laws to restrict social media companies ability to restrict a conservative viewpoints or to in their words, sensor though it's a similar first amendment question about the relationship between governments and social media companies that was widely expected to maybe come at the same time as this other case to answer the broader questions about the amendment. obviously this one was kicked out on standing the justices did not get into the first amendment question here. so that raises the possibility that maybe they will with the other case. but again, a surprising only two cases today and still a lot of these big questions outstanding big questions outstanding, including this huge immunity decision, which you have to wonder paula, whether or not the supreme court justices are taking a look at how this big debate is happening tomorrow night on cnn. >> and obviously friday would be the fallout from that debate as well, and maybe deciding they don't want to inject that kind of a decision into that environment, into that kind of political climate. where does already pretty charged up at this point. but paula reid laura, ellie, and jamie. thanks very much. appreciate all of your reporting and insights. evan perez, as well. thank you. kevin, coming up georgia on their minds, biden trump, sharpening messages some 36 hours from cnn's presidential debate in atlanta will covering it from all angles that's nice debate in america as biden and trump meet. >> and only cnn has complete coverage with unrivaled access an exclusive pre and post a beat analysis, follow cnn for every countless moment followed debate night in america tomorrow its 7:00 p.m. whether you're a professional driver or just a fan, vehicle breakdowns are costly. >> it started tukey started making some really weird noises. the last thing i remember is just the engine cut out your check engine light comes on tomorrow. >> the repair could easily cost thousands is a transmission. >> it's an exhaust leak, broken axles, but with endurance, you could never pay out of pocket for a costly repair. again, they covered a $14,000 engine replacement. >> i had a seat sensor that went out $1,400. endurance paid it. you've got a brand new transmission and we never seen the repair bill use any ce