Right now on ana cabrera reports, were coughing Breaking News from the Supreme Court expected to release decisions at any moment, one of which could be the highly anticipated ruling on Donald Trumps colorado ballot case. Just 24 hours from the super tuesday vote. Plus, nikki haley getting a primary victory, but does her win in washington, d. C. Do anything to change the trajectory before tomorrows elections . Or will donald trump complete his primary dominance this week . Were live in super tuesday states across the country. And later, fire and ice. The monster blizzard bringing dangerous conditions to california as wind whips wildfires in the texas panhandle. All right. We just got the Breaking News. Thank you for being with us here on msnbc. The Supreme Court issuing a ruling on the colorado ballot case. I want to go straight to ken dilanian who is outside the Supreme Court with this decision. Ken, what do we know . Reporter good morning, ana. Weve learned that it was a 90 decision ruling that donald trump can be on the ballot in colorado and other states. Justices during the Oral Arguments seem very skeptical of the idea that one state could decide for the nation whether donald trump was an insurrectionist and was therefore disqualified under this 150yearold provision. Now we know there was not a single justice who held that view. So there were no dissents to this 90 decision ruling that donald trump can remain on the ballot in colorado as voters go to the polls tomorrow during super tuesday, and also in maine where there had been a decision to disqualify him from the ballot, and this ruling we understand has the effect of prohibiting other states from attempting to do so, and thats what we heard from both liberal and conservative justices during the Oral Arguments, ana. For example, elena kagan confronting the plaintiffs essentially saying, your problem here is youre arguing that one state can decide for the nation who can be president , and no justice was willing to go along with that. And lisa, you are looking through we have our lisa rubin here with us. As you look through this decision, that would just just put on the website there of the Supreme Court. Yep. What stands out most to you, besides the fact that this was a 90 decision . It was a 90 decision, ana, and the decision was decided on the grounds that congress, not the states, has the power to enforce section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Still you have four justices concurring in the judgment meaning they agree with the result, but also concurring separately and saying that the way that they disagree with the majority or the prokurm opinion is they dont feel they have the need to decide this enforcement mechanism. Justice barrett who is just for herself, and sotomayor. Kagan and jackson saying this is not a right the that belongs to the state, but all four of them casting doubt on the mechanism of enforcement that this is an enacted legislation. Thats important because one other way that you could find that someone is disqualified is for example, through a Federal Court Ruling or you could find that someone is an insurrectionist through their criminal through criminal liability. So there are a number of different ways that i think these justices are raising section 3 could have been enforced, and yet the Procure Yam Decision says, but he will be on the ballot. Andrea is with us. What is your reaction to this . Two reactions. One is the fact that it is unanimous in result. I think that makes it complicated for people who want to view the decision as political, and that this is the, you know, the conservative wing which is now its a very large wing of six taking this on. I mean, the problem with that analysis, of course, is that you have the three socalled liberal justices agreeing with this conclusion. So this is really, i think, best viewed as a decision about the about a legal call. I also as my second point, think it doesnt take on and say that donald trump did not engage in insurrection. Mmhmm. In other words, the issue of the facts, is he an insurrectionist or not, was not before the court, and they do not in any way that ive seen so far, and after quick skimming, take that on to say that we are saying that that was an incorrect, factual finding. Theyre simply deciding this as a legal basis, and i think the third thing which, again, i would have to read it more closely, is it will put more questions to why jack smith didnt charge essentially insurrection, didnt charge a criminal statute which was passed of course, by congress whereupon conviction it disqualifies you from Holding Office because that would seemingly potentially qualify for what the Supreme Court says is necessary, that sort of federal action that theyre looking for as opposed to individual, unilateral state action. So those are my three sort of quick takes on a quick reading of the or skimming i should say of the opinion. Ill let you continue to skim, but please do stay with us. General neil cateal is also with us. Let me just read directly from this opinion. It says, because the constitution makes Congress Rather than the states responsible for enforcing section 3 against federal Office Holders and candidates, we reverse, meaning they reverse the decision by the colorado Supreme Court that would have kicked trump off the ballot. Your thoughts on the decision and the reasoning the justices are giving for making this ruling . This is 100 the decision that was expected after the Oral Argument which went so poorly for those who were trying to defend the colorado decision to kick donald trump off the ballot. What the decision says, and its unanimous on this point, is that there isnt any way that the 14th Amendment provision has been implemented by for example, congressional legislation. Theres some debate among the majority of the court, and justices sotomayor, kagan and jackson, as well as Justice Barrett about what congress or someone else, some other Government Entity needs to do, but the bottom line is it is the sweeping victory for donald trump that was expected on this issue of disqualification. However, the court did not do what donald trump asked which was to clear him of insurrection. His brief to the u. S. Supreme court said Supreme Court ruled i am not an insurrectionist, that i engaged in peaceful behavior on january 6th. The court did pointedly nowhere in my quick skim so far, and its only been a few minutes, did the court accept any of that. They rather ruled on a more technical ground. This is a sweeping victory in the sense that trump will remain on the ballot in colorado and other states we can expect, but it is not clearing him of the january 6th charges. Thats, of course, separate action that the Supreme Court took last week to try and delay his january 6th trial while they decide the question of whether hes absolutely immune. So bottom line, a good day for donald trump. Not a great day in the sense hes not cleared of january 6th, but he can remain on the ballot. So neal, if im understanding you correctly, that being said on the Insurrection Question and whether trump engaged in an insurrection, could the Supreme Court eventually have to answer that . Why wouldnt they have gone into that issue which is sort of the meaty part of this case . Well, i think one of the ways the Supreme Court generally operates is to not decide issues they dont have to. Thats the way, you know, thats how they protect their legitimacy, by not reaching out to decide too much. Our colleague, Marissa Murray has called this Supreme Court the yolo court in which they are reaching out to the side issues they dont have to. It is in one sense, one that would lead donald trump feeling disappointed today that they didnt do that. I suspect they didnt do that because there are criminal proceedings that are ongoing against donald trump right now, where that very question is the ball game, and so for the Supreme Court to have reached out to try and grab that in this case, i think would have been premature. I think now the action focuses where it should be which is that trump january 6th criminal trial. The Supreme Court will hear an argument whether he is immune from his conduct from january 6th. Theyll hear an Oral Argument during the week of april 22nd. I think its notable that Today Is The Day that the trump the trial against donald trump for january 6th would have started and instead were talking about this Supreme Court opinion on the 14th Amendment and were not going to get to talk about that trial because the Supreme Court last week delayed it through at least april, you know, the end of april, and so the Supreme Court will decide that case. I suspect very strongly that that case will be the inverse of this one, that its a unanimous or close to unanimous loss for donald trump on the idea that hes absolutely immune, and assuming the Supreme Court can reach that decision quickly, and i sure hope they reach it as quickly as they reached this one, then the trial against donald trump for january 6th can proceed and we can learn the American Public with all the evidence splaed out in front of us, did donald trump commit insurrectionist acts on January The 6th . Thats the conclusion, and we the American Public deserve to know the answer to that question and to hear all of the evidence before the election. I understand trump just put a post on truth social calling this a big victory, and we listened to the arguments after the Supreme Court heard those arguments in this particular case. He called them beautiful. He was anticipating a win here it seems. So those who are thinking about how trump selected three of the current justices on the bench and are wondering whether that had any influence in todays decision, andrew, what would you say . I have three answers to that, and that is justice kagan, justice sotomayor, and Justice Ketanji brown jackson. In other words, this is a unanimous decision, and its a point of law. I think, you know, this is really about, should the states have the ability to disqualify somebody versus it being decided by some federal mechanism . And thats where theres a disagreement among the justices, whether congress is the exclusive means or not. It seems like actually all the justices agree that it may not be the exclusive means, but its certainly a primary means to congressional action. Notably Justice Coney barrett says that the reason she didnt want to go so far to say that its only congress is that she thinks its very important in a political season to have the sort of rhetoric of a political season. The temperature taken down, not up, and so i think shes trying to say in her short concurrence is shes saying, this is not a political decision. This is just about who should be able to decide this issue saying it should be left to the feds, not to the states, and to reiterate something i said and that neal is saying, it does not decide that donald trump is or is not an insurrectionist. That is actually by every every court that has actually or Secretary Of State that has actually addressed the issue and found him disqualified has said he engaged in insurrection. So it doesnt address that factual issue that will be before the electorate where the jury on that will be the american citizens. This is simply an issue of when you are running for federal office, should the states be able to disqualify somebody or not, and the nine justices said no. This is something that should not be allowed for each state to decide who runs for federal office. So and clearly this is something that was joined in by socalled conservatives and socalled liberal justices on that law point. You know, it is a victory for donald trump in that sense, but not on the facts of what he engaged in and whether it instituted criminal conduct as well which still remains before both the georgia and d. C. Courts as a criminal matter. Let me read another portion of the decision. Quote, this case raises the question whether the states in addition to congress may also enforce section 3, and we can conclude that states may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office, but states have no power under the constitution to enforce section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the presidency. Neal, we know that maine had also issued a ruling that said trump was ineligible for the ballot. We know illinois just last week had a same finding, and there are more than a dozen states where this issue had risen to the surface and were left unresolved. Does this put the 14th Amendment discussion now to bed once and for all, for all of the states that maish involved . It very well may. This is a very technical part of the Supreme Courts holding, and i dont want to speak to it without studying it very carefully, but at least my quick skim of the decision suggests that, yes. It does put the strict legal challenges to the 14th Amendment. Its a debate between some of the justices on the court. It appears to that point, but i think that as a practical matter, yes. It puts those aside. Now what it doesnt put aside is the 14th Amendment Section 3 is not just about courts. Its not just about, you know, about Election Officials disqualifying something. Its also rule of thumb for you and me. One of the most important moments in our history after the civil war, our nation came together and said, look. Insurrectionists should not be on the ballot. The court today is not saying that donald trump is free of the charges of being an insurrectionist, and i think we should all remember what those words of the 14th Amendment are, and maybe that congress hasnt implemented legislation to enforce it, but you and i enforced the 14th Amendment too by what we do at the ballot box, and so while the Supreme Court decision today was expected on the idea that congress hasnt passed implementing legislation, it does leave the door open for a trial against donald trump, for the evidence to be produced against donald trump, and for the American People to still say, you are an insurrectionist for what you did, and we do not think you belong on the ballot were going to vote against you come november should you be on the ballot. Neal katyal, thank you for your analysis. You are continuing to read through this opinion as you are just outside the Supreme Court this morning. Im curious whats happening there at this moment, and what you think stands out in this decision that we all we all should know. Reporter its well, its pretty quiet outside the court today. Not a lot of protesters or onlookers. Look. In terms of what i find fascinating about this opinion is that for many, many months, serious people entertain the idea that this 14th Amendment challenge was plausible, that actually donald trump could be excluded from the ballot, and here you have this resounding 90 decision including very liberal justices saying absolutely not. Theres no chance yet. This is not how our democracy works. Where a state could decide for the nation who could be on the ballot, and, you know, the other thing stepping back, ana, is this is another example among many that are playing out right now of the Supreme Court playing a huge role in american elections, and its not necessarily the case that thats a good thing for the Supreme Court. The Approval Levels of the court poll at historic lows. 41 in a recent poll, approve of the job that the Supreme Court is doing, and the courts decision to take the Immunity Case on its regular order rather than on an expedited basis which will result in a significant delay in that case going to trial in washington, d. C. , thats a very controversial decision, and its going to be seen by many people as the Court Essentially interfering in some sense in the election, and so this is all sort of playing out here in terms of how we assess the Supreme Court and its legacy. Lisa, the New York Times put it very succinctly this morning writing, not since bush v. Gore george w. Bush obviously, and that was the presidency that was handed to bush, but have they had a direct role in a president ial contest. How big a factor is the Supreme Court in this election . Obviously its a huge factor now in states ability to regulate who was on the president ial primary and General E