reporting that the court mistakenly posted its opinion yesterday on a major abortion case in idaho based >> that's right. that was really a shock development yesterday. and actually the high court did confirm that a document was inadvertently posted to the court's website, and this was reviewed by bloomberg news and this was involving the case about abortions and idaho. and according to that document that was uploaded and we should caution this could change depending on what officially comes down from the high corporate and this was a 6-3 opinion you had three conservatives siding with three liberals and it essentially allows for abortions to happen in the state of idaho. in the case of medical emergency these not just when a woman's life is at risk. and so that is what the idaho abortion ban initially allowed for was just when a woman's life was at risk of doctor could perform that abortion. so that law is essentially on hold for now. and just to put this in perspective, when it wasn't affect women had to be aired you're lifted out of the state for medical emergencies and so now, supporters of this ruling will are hopeful that now women will be able to get more care in the case of medical emergencies, which is what this allows, but we should note this is not a holy, this is this stop short of saying basis based on what was posted to the course site eight and again, it is not official. it's stopped short of saying that federal law supersede state law. so what that means is you have the idaho law, but also 13 other states with near-total abortion bans and this is not resolved. it's still very much unsettled here. and in fact, there is a challenge against the state law, abortion ban, your total abortion they are the texas abortion ban. that's working its way through the lower courts. so that means this issue could still end up right back here in front of the high court as early as next term yeah, an ally. i mean, this is a draft opinion, but if finalize, this would have major implications in more than a dozen states. and as pamela was just saying a few moments ago, almost feels like a kick the can kind of moment for the court. that's exactly what it is, jim. so first of all, a colossal screw up by the supreme court's clerk's office for posting this opinion, which we don't know for sure if it's going to be the final and i'll opinion, but it certainly looks like it what the supreme court did here is essentially say, we're not ruling on this just now. it's called improvidently granted, meaning, we screwed up. we never should have taken this case and we're not going to decide it now. so really what they did is they punted and justice jackson wrote a dissent where she called that just out she said, look, this preserves the status quo for now in idaho, the federal law, the broader federal law, will prevail as of now. but really there's all sorts of issues that need to be resolved eventually, including the constitutionality of idaho statute, the constitutionality of other statutes, and ultimately, the bottom-line question here, jim and pam is what prevailed i was federal law or state law because federal law says any hospital receiving medicare funds which has all of them essentially, has to provide emergency care if the mother's life is in danger or if it's needed to stabilize the mother's overall health condition. the idaho law and other similar laws in texas say, no, you only a doctor only has to provide an abortion only if the mother's life is at risk, but not if there's a different lesser but serious medical condition that's a huge difference with enormous implications yeah. >> i mean, in this federal laws, but on the books for years now. and so it's amazing that this is really up in the air at this point. and pamela, let's turn to the much anticipated ruling. what to say that on donald trump's claim of presidential immunity, we're still waiting walks through the stakes. if the supreme court weighs in, this, this could sent shockwaves. i've been the stakes are through the roof gem, right? i mean, this is a data lake that was consequential blockbuster case of this term because it is considering the extent to which a president a former executive, who was in office, i can have immunity from conduct during his or hypothetically her time in office and the oval office and look, you have trump on one hand side of this, right? former president trump, who is asking the court to embrace sweeping immunity, arguing that this applies to his time after he left office i said it also applies to his efforts to interfere and the peaceful transfer of power in 2020. and then on the other side, you have jack smith, the special counsel in this case, who says a former executive cannot have immunity here and that trump's acts while he was in the oval office, for example, and are fairing and the peaceful transfer of power that those were not official acts that was private conduct and that basically that if you were to give him immunity here, that it would just depending on how the court rules, it could give a president sort of free pass for criminal conduct. so you have the lower courts who were dismissive of trump's arguments in this case, it will be interesting to see what the high court comes not with will it be a more nuanced approach? will the high court come out and say, you know, there needs to be official conduct versus private conduct. and here's a test for this. we're going to kick it down to the lower courts and that's notable because timing is of the essence here, right depending on how the high core roles that could have a direct impact on some of the cases involving trump and whether a trial will happen before the election or not. so we are closely watching this yeah. >> i mean, as critics of the court have said, the delay is the decision and this effectively means that we may not get this case. so this january 6 case before the november election. now, pamela and elie, please stand by. we know there's a lot of important stuff coming get out of the court will get back to you with b. now for more on this, you didn't gloria borger and jamie gan gayle, great to be with both of you here in atlanta on our big world headquarters, the tech would campus is beautiful here. yeah, they've been treating a nice here, very now. they've been treated me, go to let's start like i'm a google i know it's incredible. it's just a beautiful place. jamie, what about this abortion ruling yet again not, not being released to the public in a conventional way. i'll just put a diplomatically, oops technical difficulties. i hit send this is this is the court has had a lot of trauma and and chaos and this adds to it. >> i think what will be interesting, we have one decision out that's just been announced, that's an epa case is ohio versus epa, good neighbor plan, where we were told that there are two boxes that have come out. so three or four opinions who we don't know whether the abortion will decision will come out officially today, but it was this was on the biden plan to curb smog and air pollution. this this first one that we know about at this point, but this is if that abortion decision comes out today and look, we expect reproductive rights to be discussed at the debate tonight with or without this decision the democrats biden campaign's see this as a winning issue for them. we've looked at public polling public polling like 74% is it's just out of step with with the overturn of roe versus wade. so that will be significant and may come up this season. yeah. i mean, gloria, i donald trump put the justices on the court who overturned roe versus wade and the biden campaign added four and he takes credit for it out on the campaign trail. >> and this is what it is unleashed on the public. there's federal law that says you have to provide emergency care hospitals for all kinds of patients who are in life-threatening situations. this is kind of of up in the air jump ball right now as to how, you know, it's the, it's the question of and i think it was written in the dissents. be careful what you wish for because you're gonna get it yeah. and the complications are enormous one complication. i don't think we're going to get today on a supreme court case is the immunity issue and why? well, first of all, i think that the chief justice understands what a political issue that would be and how that would play into the debate. this evening. in every in every possible way. and roberts really, it's trying to keep the korda out of politics, although as we know, that's impossible at these days. and so i think that that is one case that's that's going to have to wait because they cannot do it the night of the debate. i mean, they cannot they just they can't they can't dip their toe into that this evening. yeah. but whether the supreme court rules on immunity, we're not today. jamie, it's going to come up tonight. joe biden is going to yeah. >> biden is going to make we are told a centerpiece tonight democracy in parallel is not a campaign slogan this is the reason he ran last time. this is the reason he thinks is at the center of his campaign. i think the other thing about that immunity decision, whether we can get today, which i agree with gloria, it's it's highly unlikely or tomorrow or it could go early next week the significance is, will this trial happened? will jack smith, the special counsel be able to have this trial before the election? why is that so important? he has all kinds of grand jury testimony from people like chief of staff, mark meadows, vice president, former vice president mike pence, white house council. he knows things that my sources at the justice department feel american voters should here, right before the election. >> and i do want to break away from our conversation just for a moment to get back out to pamela brown and elie honig because we have a new decision coming down from the supreme court. they have rejected the multi-billion-dollar purdue pharma opioids settlement. is that right? that shielded the sackler family that is going to be that is going to that's going to be very controversial. payment. what can you tell us? >> that's right. the supreme court rejected this controversial settlement. jim essentially, on one hand, would have sent billions of dollars to treatment programs and victims of the nation's opioid i'd epidemic, but also would have shielded the sackler family from future lawsuit. so what we're learning right now is that the court rejected this and this elie honig to bring you in as a win for the biden administration is because the biden administration had challenged this settlement, pam. so just so people have the context here, purdue pharma is the manufacturer of oxycontin and they've been sued and brought, had legal proceedings part against them by the united states justice department. they also entered into bankruptcy. and as part of a bankruptcy agreement, purdue pharma agreed to give up four point something billion dollars to go to treatment, but they also got a benefit in that agreement, which is that future claims, future lawsuits against them were exterminated, were extinguished in advance and part of the agreement that the bankruptcy court agreed to is okay. you're going to give up all this money, but future people cannot sue you for this. and the biden administration challenge that, and the supreme court has now agreed with the biden administration. the supreme court and said, you cannot exceed dominate extinguish future lawsuits. and the sort of lineup of justice's is really interesting here completely cross-ideological both ways. the majority is justices gorsuch, thomas alito barrett, and jackson. that's a group you don't see often together the dissenters are justices kavanaugh, the chief justice roberts, along with sotomayor and kagan, so familiar. yeah. that's you're never going to see this alignment can see that. let me just follow up because for the viewer that might here, but wait, it's rejecting the settlement that would give billions of dollars to victims of the opioid epidemic and treatment programs. what about that? well, so first of all, it sends them essentially back to drawing board. >> they're now going to have to try to come up with a different bankruptcy agreement. but the court's judgment is it's unlawful, it's unconstitutiona l to cut off the rights of people who might sue in the future, but just haven't sued. yeah, that's really the gist of the decision here. all right. so, uh, win for the biden administration has used just laid out elie honig back to you, jim all right. panama la. thank you very much. and gloria, i mean, this opioid issue is it's a massive issue across this country and it's it's one that maybe we just don't cover enough the damage that it out. and so i look, people want the opportunity big pharma is not popular and people want the opportunity to be able to sue big pharma. and the biden administration said, look, we don't want to cut it off at any particular point. and i think, when you look at what's gone on in the court so far, again, we haven't had the immunity case, but the biden administration has done okay and which is sort of surprising to some people and again, we don't have the immunity case, but the biden administration folks are not disappointed in a, lot of these rulings. yeah. >> and jamie, we are waiting not only the immunity decision that pertains to the january 6 case, but there's other january 6 case which is also very important. >> right? that one is a little more complicated. it has to do with sort of a very narrow definition of the law about obstruction and it actually was brought by defendants in january 6 rioters. when you look at it, that particular charge was not brought across the board. it was brought for the most what egregious serious cases. so that is something we're waiting for obviously, because of that and because of the case against trump, people are looking at that legal experts are arguing over whether that could also pertain to trump's case. some legal experts in may be very narrowly. others say not at all. but again, we have to wait for the decision, right? could potentially affect trump, but we just we don't know. right. and both of those decisions obviously, it could push that january 6 case that jack smith case well past the election. and voters may not have the opportunity to here are the facts of that case. before going to vote. >> well, i think at this point, given how close we are to the election, i think we have to assume that we're not going to hear these cases before the election. i think that would be the best bet. i mean, jack smith has been trying his darn dust and you know that from the case in florida, for example, well, the document case that the alvin bragg case in new york seems to be the only one that that the voters have been able to see it fruition. and by the way, i think the that is something that joe biden might mention this evening the felonies and just to kind of dig it into trump. but again, i think these other cases and it's upsetting to a lot of people when you look at the polling, a majority of the american public believes that these cases should have been tried before the election. >> and it's just not gonna happen. and jamie, i mean, let's just get back to read this abortion ruling that leaked out of the supreme court yesterday what what's going on over there do they need to hit control alt delete or something? >> i mean, i forgive me for looking at my phone. checking to see yep. date. are we going to get that we're they're going to going to put it out today. clearly, it's you know, it is a very important case both in idaho but also for reproductive rights. every place i it's been two years. we have to remember since roe was overturned, which also got leaked right so this focus is on this idaho law that says no abortion unless a mother's life is in danger. >> this is a very high standard and it is very tricky for doctors because they have to make a call in an emergency situation and it has a broader impact. then just an abortion because you can have a situation where maybe it's not the mother's life is in danger, but it could prevent a family, a woman from having children again in the future this is this goes really beyond just abortion and it's had a chilling effect on the medical community in idaho. >> it puts doctors in a terrible situation. i mean, you know, do you medevac somebody out of a hospital in idaho? not because their life is in danger, but because potentially they might have to have a hysterectomy as a young woman and not be able to have a child in the future. i mean, these are these are life and death decisions. and the doctors are rebelling against it. and again, it's one of those unintended consequences of what occurred in dobbs. and i think that the american public, when they see these stories, gets outraged by them yeah, it has to have something to do with these poll numbers that we're seeing americans are still frustrated with the dobbs decision every time abortion is on the ballot in state referendums they are winning by, by wide margins. >> it's all. i mean, talk about unintended consequences. it's almost as though the dobbs case has rallied a lot of americans around the idea of protecting deductive rights. just that's what it says in the numbers big picture, what you're saying has to do with public opinion versus where this court has gone. and i think it's interesting there is as you go through the cases public opinion is not where the court has been and to just circle back to the immunity case. yeah. the fact that the court has waited this long to rule, they can rule quickly and rated decision quickly when they want to. in fact, a couple of weeks ago former congresswoman liz cheney wrote an op-ed talking about the importance of getting this decision quickly. they appear to be going to the last day that didn't even have to rule. they didn't have to take when its ruling comes out, it makes you wonder what these justices are going to say. because one of the things that we've seen in some of these cases so far, whether it's ketanji brown, jackson, some of the other justices they've been making some pointed comments at their, respective justices on the high court, you know, taking issue with where the court is right now and it's coming out of the text. i think whale yeah, is obvious. i mean, we have a court in turmoil and there's there's absolutely no doubt about it. i think it stems from the dobbs decision it's also in chaos given the leak. for example, this week again, when did that ever happen before dobbs? there i think there's a lot of mistrust on the part of certain justices towards other justices. i mean, this is this is something i don't think we've really ever seen written about this. yeah, exactly. the backstory is going to be something else. are they meet gloria great to have both of you here in atlanta what's coming up? we're just hours away from cnn's historic presidential debate. we're live in atlanta with new reporting from the biden and trump camps were also of course, watching the supreme court any decisions that come out, we'll get back to you in just a few moments. they witness the most anticipated moment of this election and the stakes couldn't be higher. the president and the former president, one day moderated by jake tapper and dana bash the cnn presidential debate tonight at nine live on cnn and streaming on max this summer. snacking just got serious introducing new $3 footlong divers world might not be ready for them, but at $3 a pop, your wallet definitely is whether you're a professional driver or just a fan vehicle breakdowns are costly. >> it started tugging, started making some really weird noises. the last thing i remember is just the engine cut out. >> if your check engine light comes on tomorrow, the repair could easily cost thousands. >> is