fox news alert. supreme court court, majority ruled that presidents have limited immunity from prosecution and they can be criminally prosecuted for unofficial acts. trump claiming he had presidential immunity from four felony charges in his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. i'm sandra smith in for harris faulkner. a big news day. the supreme court has thrown the case back to a federal judge to decide if trump's felony january 6th charges meet the criteria for prosecution. a trump campaign senior advisor with this moments ago. >> they basically have said sorry, jack smith, you don't get to just impede and intrude on the executive branch. we get to have protections for presidents who are doing things while they are in office so they don't come out and get targeted and criminally and civilly sued. it is very important. a good decision. obviously i believe absolute immunity should exist for the executive branch but they did recognize it. >> sandra: shannon bream is all over this and live at the supreme court with continued reaction to this. shannon. >> sandra, the bottom line is a win for the trump campaign today in that this is kicked back to the lower courts. it buys more time and makes it less likely this case actually gets to trial by election day. 6-three there is immunity, criminal immunity for core functions of the presidency for official acts of the presidency. but not for unofficial acts. they said this case was so rushed and pressed along we can't answer these questions so it has to go back to the lower court. the chief justice says the president may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers and he is entitled at a minimum for a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. that immunity applies equally to all occupants of the oval office regardless of politics, party, or policy. they are saying it applies in this case but this will be for every president moving forward. justice jackson said something i heard her say during arguments. she is worried about the real world impact saying to the extent the majority's new accountability paradigm allows presidents to evade punishment for criminal acts in office the seeds for absolute power have been planted and without a doubt absolute power corrupts absolutely. a win for the former president. how it plays out will take a lot of time and see whether he is successful on the merits below. >> sandra: thank you very much. jonathan turley, fox news contributor, george washington university law professor and constitutional law attorney and andrew cherkasky former federal prosecutor. welcome to you both. jonathan, top line thoughts as the news break. i want to read you from justice sotomayor's dissent along with jackson and kagan in this case. if a president, quote, orders the navy seal team to assassinate a political rival, immune. takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon, immune were her words in her dissent. your reaction at this hour. >> the problem with a dissent it doesn't show the same vigor looking at the opposing view. president obama ordered the killing of an american citizen by simply declaring him to be a terrorist without a trial. clearly justice sotomayor does not appear alarmed about that. presumably would view that within a core function. the majority was trying to find something in the middle. they did not embrace the trump sweeping arguments. they did not embrace the lower court's arguments sweeping in the other direction. but this is a major victory for the former president trump. the language here is highly favorable to him. they even go into his january 6th speech and say presidents are expected to speak passionately and publicly about issues of importance. this was an issue of great importance. and goes on to say that when the president speaks to the vice president, this is part of the president's official conduct. all of these statements are important because the court is giving navigational beacons for a lower court judge proven favor favorable to special counsel and motivated getting a trial before the election and the beacons are more narrow giving clear language and heavy burden for jack smith. he is not likely to go quietly into the night but he will have a heck of a time trying to satisfy this burden. >> sandra: thank you for that. andrew cherkasky is on set here. you heard there jonathan. you heard from shannon. being seen as a major win not only for the former president himself but the trump campaign and the timing is crucial. >> it guts jack smith's prosecution and some of us have seen this for a long time a long time coming. the idea the president doesn't have broad sweeping immunity whoy ate issues for presidents in the future and in the past for acts committed in the past. what the court has done is essentially created a hierarchy. the acts within the constitutional authority of the president immune. those that are official, those perhaps have to go back to lower courts for further analysis. the court does say unofficial acts have no immunity. what we look at is the middle category. it really does break down the idea that at least two of the remaining charges, last week's case in fitcher will eliminate two of the four of the charges against donald trump right now. so really they have kind of two charges left. i think jack smith will have to go through probably create a superseding indictment. send it back to the court for their new analysis under the new standard. it may go all the way back through the appel at court and up to the supreme court to see if the lower court analyzed it correctly before the trial. even the idea it could make it to trial with the little bit that remains i don't think is likely. i think it will go back through the appellate system. >> sandra: jonathan, your reaction to that. something you put out in the moments following this in is no protection or unofficial acts. it is very much for trump in the sense the court rejected the lower court and recognizes some immunity and further delay the lower court proceedings to andrew's point. trump will have argue actions that his actions fall within the navigational beakions, how do you see it playing out? >> a heavy advantage for trump on those questions because of the language used by the court. it is clearly telegraphing that there is a heavy presumption here not just in terms of the general constitutional standard but this specific case. many people expected the court to avoid the specifics in the case. it did not. and it left language to guide this court. in terms of how this plays out, even with a judge who has been quite favorable to the special counsel, it will be difficult to satisfy this burden. particularly with regard to things like the january 6th speech which the special counsel has referred to a great deal. many of us believe that president trump was protected entirely in that speech under the first amendment. the court is saying here that he also may be protected as a point of presidential duties. it is expected for presidents to be able to speak on these types of issues. so going forward it will get tough because jack smith is known as someone who tends to double down on weak hands. he is not someone that yields readily to -- and unanimously overturned in a previous high-profile case. what is interesting about this case is that this is following a hay maker in fischer which would knock out two counts in d.c. jackson gave him a roadmap how he could talk about -- but he may still try to keep this on the runway to take off. i personally think that these two opinions have ripped the wings off his case. but jack smith is someone who does not readily yield to these types of setbacks. >> sandra: jonathan and andrew, stand by. former president trump reacting to the historic decision. bryan llenas is in west palm beach with that reaction for us. what are you hearing? >> we'll go straight to the truth social post from the former president who says in all caps, big win for our constitution and democracy. proud to be an american. the president's son, don junior posting solid scotus ruling today. i'm sure the corrupt prosecutors and d.c. judge will work overtime to continue their lawfare. it is all they have left. now this is all about the calendar. we have talked about this a lot now. it looks like this will not go to trial. that means that the georgia racketeering case is now delayed until at least october. you have got the florida classified documents case that is indefinitely delayed and now you have this scotus ruling that will send it back to the lower courts and be bogged down in appeals. it looks like a former president for the next four months will be able to campaign freely depending on what happens on that july 11th sentencing date for the new york criminal case as we head to what has been thus far a tight election. another note based on what we've read here from the supreme court, it is interesting here remember that the former president was charged by jack smith with four counts, conspiracy to defraud the united states, obstructing an official proceeding and conspiracy to violate civil rights and the fake elector scheme. in this opinion it gets to the fact whether or not much of the bulk of the heart of jack smith east case about the fake elector scheme, whether or not it is an official or unofficial act noting a conversation with the vice president mike pence could be deemed an official conversation. and also the fact that when talking about these states, according to this piece here, when it comes to pennsylvania and arizona and that fake elector scheme, that is really at the heart of these charges. so whether or not the supreme court said they weren't willing to make a decision necessarily on that but that they've said there needs to be more fact finding as it relates to that fake elector scheme that jack smith is charging at the crux of the january 6th case. really fascinating here as we continue to go through more reaction from the trump campaign. obviously they are feeling very positive about it thus far. >> sandra: we'll check back with you shortly. reaction is pouring in as everyone can probably imagine would be the case and it is. andy mccarthy can now join us, former assistant u.s. attorney. thank you for jumping in with us. give us your top line thoughts and reaction to the ruling. >> it is more sweepingly in favor of executive immunity than i thought it would be. and i say executive immunity rather than trump immunity on purpose, sandra. i think the most important thing about this case, which judge gorsuch noted they were writing for the ages was the need to protect the executive branch from what i think we're in, a new era of politicized prosecutions. i think the most important thing in the opinion is where the court says that the president's motive is not something that a court is going to look at. in other words, if a presidential action is within the gamut. the courts will not look if the president had a corrupt motive in issuing a pardon or giving directive to the justice department. it is essential if the presidency will work properly and for the people who are hysterical saying it gives the president too much power, first of all the power the president always had. we had 230 years with no indictments of presidents and congress is the place where the framers decided to check presidential excess. so presidents can still be impeached and removed and disqualified if they abuse their executive powers, but it is obvious and seems to be common sense the framers would have thought it absurd that the main check on the president would be justice department prosecutors who work for the executive branch. >> sandra: andrew cherkasky is here with us on set. i do want to bring you back to the fold. something i want to get you to react to. this is orrin cur, a uc berkeley law professor. if my skim of the case is correct there is 0 chance trump will be tried before the election. if trump loses in 2024, it is not clear on which counts he would be tried at all. years to figure that out. that's after a quick skim of it at least. your reaction to that. it is worth thinking about. >> there is almost no chance that any of these trials make it to trial before the 2024 election. we have to remember how wrong the courts have gotten this. first the d.c. district level and circuit court level saying there was no immunity at all. they were wrong on that. now they send it back to the district court. the chance episcopal they get it right at the district level and circuit court level are low given their history with regard to this case. we also have to look at the florida case, which now has to be re-examineed under the new immunity idea. the documents case starts before the end of his term as president. the charge starts on the day in which the presidency was handed over. the documents relate to his time in office. finally, i think we might see a new round of motions in the new york criminal trial. i don't -- i think that ultimately the courts will find it was within his personal unofficial gamut but it dealt with times in office. if the defense can create a creative argument that those acts fell within the official function of the presidency that could happen before the sentencing on july 11th. >> sandra: wow, shannon, further weigh in on that. you have probably had a longer chance to dig through the 96 pages of this but just a reset here. the supreme court has ruled that former president donald trump has limited immunity in election interference prosecution, the court has ordered the lower court to further review the legal and constitutional questions involved. what are you learning as you dig deeper into this? >> well, there is a lot of back and forth between the majority and dissent. you noted some of the dissent earlier they are upset thinking it will empower someone to come in and take all kinds of actions and argue they are official acts and not be held accountable. the majority in writing says the dissent strikes a tone of chilling doom whole le disproportion to what the court did today. he is subject to prosecution in his unofficial capacity. the president is a part of government and has sweeping powers and duties. there are ways to go after the president through impeachment and other issues but note that what the dissent is upset about and worried about according to the majority, that's not going to come to fruition. we still have to find out whether all of these allegations that jack smith has set up fall into that category of official or unofficial. there was a lot of talk about that during the arguments at the supreme court. so it may be as i said earlier a huge win for the trump campaign, for president trump today. but if the cases ever actually get to fruition it may be a different answer as to what these allegations are properly classified, official or unofficial. majority wants folks to know this isn't a free pass for people to get away with criminal activity. it is narrowed in scope and very specifically applicable to a president. >> sandra: that's all really interesting stuff. if you could stand by live at the supreme court. mark levine is with us now. give us your thoughts. >> i think the court has about had it with jack smith. stomping all over the constitution. he wanted to race to the courthouse. they stopped him. he brings obstruction charges to the u.s. attorney in d.c. basically rewriting the statute as he did the bribery statute with the former governor of virginia. they said no. then he brings this unique substantive immunity case, rubber stamps it and you have a panel in the circuit court with two biden appointees and they rubber stamp it. i'm sure the justices are saying they are raising all these constitutional issues right before the election. that's not the way we roll. the decision was brilliant. the status quo with one little footnote that says -- by the way, if you are going to charge a president or former president, candidate for president, a post president, you have to have more than just we think he committed a crime. we will have this very basic standard and figure it out as we go along that there is a presumption that he didn't. now overcome the presumption before you actually send this to trial. i don't think that's such a gre greater terrible thing. [inaudible] the attorney general of the united states takes the most aggressive, atrocious prosecutor with a horrendous -- as a special counsel. he should never been selected as special counsel. his appointment is being challenged in florida by two former attorneys general of the united states. he is down in florida demanding a gag rule that would violate the first amendment. he is demanding that classified evidence not go public. this is why -- [inaudible] he demanded -- [inaudible] [poor audio] >> and notice the media, the typical media are saying she is slow walking. no, what she is doing is looking at the motion. it is a unique constitutional issue. this prosecutor has -- [inaudible] that's horrendous and so the court is saying we don't have to follow his lead. we have to protect these institutions come what may. and that is exactly what they did today. very important. i think they have about had it with jack smith and his antics and the courts are busy rubber stamping and rushing at the demand of the media. >> sandra: if you could stand by with us. what you have to say is important. we lost some of your words due to the connection. if you could stand by i want to bring andy mccarthy back in starting to get political reaction to this. chuck schumer is weighing in. senator calling this, jonathan, a sad day for america. a sad day for our democracy on x. the basis of our judicial system is that no one is above the law. incitement of an insurrection should not be considered a core constitutional power afforded to a president. your reaction to that, jonathan. >> well, he certainly gets points. no one would read this majority opinion and view it in such wildly inaccurate terms. this is a real effort to balance the interests of the country, of the constitution. it rejects the extreme arguments on both sides. comes up with a presumption that can be rebutted but recognizes that presidents need some breathing room in the decisions that they make. this will have implications outside of d.c. it will be interesting how the blowback effects, for example, the georgia case. the court here saying look, when the president speaks to the vice president and others on matters of great importance, that is part of what a president does. the georgia complaint in my view was poorly drafted and i've been a critic of that case since it was filed. and it really sort of was a peddler's wagon that brought in every possible allegation and conversation to create this broad racketeering claim. president trump will now be able to argue that some of that is protected not just by the first amendment, but by the constitution. i want to add one other thing here. that is everyone who has been critical of judge cannon in saying why aren't you moving as fast as the other judge trying to get a trial before the election, this is the reason, right? that the lower court in this case and the court of appeals made fast work of the constitutional claims in this case. and chief justice roberts mocked the d.c. circuit opinion and said you basically seem to be saying he could be prosecuted because he is being prosecuted. what type of standard is that? when people criticize judge cannon for holding hearings and listening to arguments, this is why a real judge does that. not to say the other judge is not a real judge but she moved very, very quickly and in my view and the view of the supreme court she got it wrong, as did the d.c. circuit. i don't blame her. this was still developing as a constitutional point of law. but there is a risk in moving fast. so all those th