never seen. and if this trial doesn't go forward because of the court's delay, in answering this question, the american public may literally never see this evidence. >> everyone, thank you so much, and really appreciate your analysis and expertise. that does it for us today. for now, i'm ana cabrera reporting from new york. thank you for being with us. chris jansing picks up our coverage right now. good morning. it is 11:00 a.m. eastern. 8:00 a.m. pacific. i'm chris jansing in for jose diaz-balart. we're going to pick up with that breaking news from the u.s. supreme court, issuing several major decisions as its term is coming to a close, but most particularly that ruling in favor of a january 6th rioter, and another one that sweeps aside the long-standing precedent. let me bring in nbc's ken dilanian outside the u.s. supreme court. barbara mcquade is a former u.s. attorney who is also an msnbc legal analyst. let's reset the stage here, ken. what did the court say in its ruling in the january 6th case? >> reporter: before i get to that very important case, i want to say justice roberts made some news by announcing that monday will be the last day of this term and that means we know that on monday we will get that crucial immunity decision, the question of whether presidents are immune from prosecution in their official acts, that's the big one we have been waiting for, it impacts the january 6th case against donald trump. we now know we're getting that on monday. but as you said, the court announced today a decision that also affects the january 6th case against mr. trump, though it is unclear how, based on this decision, but this decision as many expected narrowed the scope of this law that has been used widely in january 6th prosecutions, obstruction of an official proceeding. this was a law that came out of the enron scandal which had to do with the destruction of documents. whoever corruptly alters, mutilates, destroys documents is guilty of this crime, and then there is an or clause. otherwise interferes with a governmental proceeding. and that second clause was used to prosecute a lot of january 6th defendants. the court is now saying that that was improperly applied against mr. fisher and against many other people. now, the practical implications of this are that most january 6th defendants who are charged with this crime are also charged and convicted of other crimes, assaulting police officers. so there is only a small number of cases, 50 or so, that are going to be affected by this and only 27 of those people are still in prison. so, the impact on the january 6th case is going to be minor. in terms of the impact on donald trump's case, this is one of the charges levied against mr. trump, but many legal scholars said because donald trump's plot, alleged plot to overturn the election involved fake electors, documents, written documents involving slates of fake electors, that that conduct would be covered even under this new supreme court interpretation that requires this statute to be about documents. but that's something that the judge in that case and maybe perhaps appeals courts and maybe the supreme court again will have to chew on. >> let's pick up there, if we can, barbara. i think even before this, the expectation was, a lot of legal analysis was if fisher won, as he did, that trump's conduct would still be covered by a kind of narrower interpretation of the law. but give us your take on the impact and how this might affect the case against donald trump. >> yes, so, you know, this case is going to have a devastating impact across the country. this statute get used in a lot of cases under a lot of circumstances. as justice barrett said in her dissenting opinion, the court chooses not to read what congress said in this statute. but nonetheless, the majority has spoken, and they have decided that this relates only to documents, but the majority includes a really important sentence which says when it talks about otherwise, it could include not just destroying, altering or mutilating a document but creating false evidence. and that's a really important sentence that is in there because they know what's going on in the rest of the world and so creating a false slate of electors would still be covered by the statute and i see the trump prosecution as being unchanged by this decision. >> but, potentially again, look, i don't think there is anybody who has been on our air, including you, who said you think there is another case for donald trump of the remaining three that was going to make it before the election. does it push it off potentially even further? >> well, i don't know, i imagine that this is another issue now that we'll be raised in a pretrial motion by donald trump. however, it is not one that could allow interlocutory appeal, even if there were a motion hearing on this issue, it would have to wait until the end of a trial before it could be appealed. i think the biggest challenge is what we hear on monday in the immunity case. even if we go back, judge chutkan has promised donald trump to pick up where we left off, which was three more months and so i think monday is what, july 1st, that means, you know, three months from july 1st we're looking at october 1st before trial starts. a case that is likely to go six weeks or more, probably puts a verdict past the election even under the best possible case scenario. >> let me go back to what ken was saying right before we came into this hour, barbara, this probably impacts maybe 50, correct me if i'm wrong, of the -- what is it, now, hundreds and hundreds of folks who were charged and convicted, related to the january 6th insurrection. he said 27 of them are still in prison. this is not the first time a supreme court ruling obviously addresses something that has impacted previous cases. but what happens in that instance? even if you served your time, or even if you came to a plea deal, but you have a conviction on your record, can you go back and ask for it to be re-examined? >> is that for me? >> i'm sorry, barbara. >> i can answer that one if you like, chris. >> thank you. >> i'm sorry. the rule is anyone in the pipeline may take benefit from a newly announced rule. if somebody has served their time, appeals have run, they're out of luck. if someone is awaiting appeal, they're still in the pipeline and so they get the benefit of that. so if someone has been convicted, it will go back either for a new sentencing, if they were convicted of other counts along with this one, or if this was the only count of conviction, they could get a new trial or their case could be dismissed altogether. >> take us back, if you will, ken, for a minute, and remind us what was at the heart of this case and what mr. fisher was accused of doing. >> reporter: yeah, he was charged with seven counts, this was only one of them. he was accused of violently attacking a police officer, and was one of the more egregious allegedly members of the group of people that attacked the capitol. this is a significant case against him that will now go forward on these other counts, just not on this one, chris. >> let's talk about the big other news that ken just told us about, barbara, which is monday. monday we are finally getting, i think, what most people would say was the ruling that has been so widely waited for and that is on presidential immunity. tell us the stakes here, what the considerations are for the justices and if you like, why you think they held it to the very end. >> well, i imagine they held it to the very end because there was differences of opinion. i don't think they hold it for the end for a grand finale or to stall or delay. i think it is frustrating they did not act with greater urgency in deciding the case quickly. i imagine there were some different opinions that had to be circulated back and forth to be able to get this decision ready. i don't think that the court is going to say everything donald trump did was immune from prosecution. i guess that's an example. one to say everything is immune and the case must be dismissed, the other extreme to say nothing is immune and the case may proceed immediately. what i actually expect to happen is for the court to engage in some line drawing here, to be able to decide not only this case, but to give future presidents some guidance as to what kind of behavior will be immune and which can be a criminal. it could be choosing between official conduct and campaign conduct. that could be a possibility. official conduct and personal conduct could be a possibility. and so i think they're going to draw that line in this case, most of the conduct at issue, if not all of it related to donald trump as presidential candidate and not as chief executive of the united states. and i think the one area of potential disagreement is his conduct with regard to the department of justice in trying to use it as a way to bring credibility to claims of fraud. it could be that there needs to be a hearing for the lower court to address that, which then could be appealed and lead to many, many, more months of appeals. we'll have to see where it comes out. but i think the other option that jack smith has, if there is just a sliver of this case that is potentially immune, he could simply dismiss that conduct and move on with what he has. >> let me go back as well to nbc's ryan reilly, outside the supreme court. he closely follows as anyone knows who watches msnbc the january 6th cases. i just want to get your take on this and the broader impact that you see as someone who has followed these individual cases so very closely, ryan. >> reporter: yeah, i mean, it is going to involve a lot of paper work, but i would say i think prosecutors were prepared for this, just given the -- what came out of the oral arguments, that this was inevitable. just the other day, january 6th defendant was charged but wasn't charged with the obstruction of an official proceeding, even though under my reading of the alleged acts and in fact his own testimony in the case, which suggested he was well aware of what was happening inside of the building, in normal course you would have probably seen an obstruction charge brought against that individual who is actually someone who hangs out outside of the d.c. jail and has harassed law enforcement officers who were testifying in other cases and was at the capitol himself on january 6th. they didn't bring the obstruction charge which i found interesting. i think a lot of this was preparing for this potential decision that would narrow how this could be used. they could always down the line bring that by indictment against that individual defendant but that wasn't a charge they came up with up-front. i think everyone has been preparing for this, defense attorneys, federal prosecutors, judges. a lot of these cases, when judges are making these sentencings, they are saying i would have sentenced this individual to this term regardless of what the supreme court did with the fisher decision because they were sort of anticipating this decision which could have narrowed how this could be used. there is an individual who is actually out of jail right now who his own felony charge or out of prison right now whose only felony charge was that obstruction of an official proceeding charge, an individual by the name of larry brock, he was inside of the senate chamber, he had on this military gear and because that was his only felony offense and because this case was sort of pending before the supreme court, he ended up serving what was more than the time that he would have served just for the misdemeanor offenses. so this is basically going to end up i think with a lot of proceedings and a lot of different additional filings in these more than 1400 cases that we have seen work through the system, but while there is more than 200 cases that could potentially be impacted by this, the practical implication is smaller, because a lot of these defendants have already served out their term. so it is not as though you can go back and get that time back, right? if you already completed your sentence for an obstruction of an official proceeding charge, that is the end of the game for you. there are individuals who haven't served all of that out, who i think will potentially be impacted by this, especially those defendants, that narrow category of defendants, about 52, who that is the only felony charge that they were facing. that's where this impact is really going to center on about 52 defendants who only have that felony offense as well as several other misdemeanors. >> we have just gotten a statement from the senior biden adviser about this ruling. it tells you exactly that these rulings often are not just about the legal, they're very much about the political, and as rhinos as well or better than anybody, this has been a political football and the legitimacy and the prosecution against these january 6th rioters, this is what the statement is from a senior biden adviser, violent insurrectionists and those who encourage them must be held accountable but donald trump thinks otherwise. just last night trump again defended january 6th, and the insurrectionists who violently assaulted law enforcement officers. today's ruling does not change the fundamental truth that donald trump will always put himself over our democracy. it ties in our other big story of the day which is the debate. there is another one which is really about big business and donald trump, the argument that joe biden made against him for a long time, he has favored the interests of the rich against the working class. there is another decision today by the supreme court, you probably, like most of us, barbara, know it as the she have chevron case. it has long, long been a target of conservatives. it involves of the rights of businesses as they see it. tell me about chevron and overturning this long time precedence. >> this is an attack not only on the working class, but also on career professionals in government who develop expertise in their field. chevron deference meant that when an administrative agency interprets a rule, as it must, congress delegates to administrative agencies all kinds of rule-making authority. and that these agencies are entitled to interpret their own rules that they made. so, for decades, courts have given deference to those interpretations. that doesn't mean they are binding. they may be overturned. as long as they are reasonable interpretations of those rules, they get deference to those rules. today, you know, part of this idea to dismantle the administrative state, the court has overturned that deference. and it is just going to make it that much harder for agencies like the epa and osha and other organizations that protect ordinary americans and consumers from protecting the public against the interests of big business. big business, of course, is, you know, the business of business is business is business. they will spew carcinogens into the air. they will taint our waters. they will have unsafe working conditions because they will no longer have deference to these rules that these administrative agencies have set forth. so, this is actually among, you know, legal watchers of government and administrative agencies really significant decision. it is a real blow to the career professional civil service. >> all of the decisions today, including one on homelessness really go to the heart of what both sides in this campaign believe and that is that one of the biggest stakes in november is the ability in the future to appoint the supreme court justices, but today, i think ryan reilly, ken dilanian and barbara mcquade for being with us and talking about what we saw today, and, again, very big revelation from justice roberts today, the chief justice of the u.s. supreme court, monday is the last day of the term, which means that arguably the most closely watched decision of this term will be coming down on presidential immunity. thank you, all. up next, our other top story today, the presidential debate. the biden campaign resisting calls for him to bow out of the race, amid concern over his performance. while the trump team is claiming victory. we'll talk about what's next. and later, the threat of a third party challenge. we'll look at whether what happened last night gives robert f. kennedy jr. a boost. f. kennedy jr. a boost plaque psoriasis. she thinks her flaky gray patches are all people see. otezla is the #1 prescribed pill to treat plaque psoriasis. allison! over here! otezla can help you get clearer skin and reduce itching and flaking. with no routine blood tests required. doctors have been prescribing otezla for over a decade. otezla is also approved to treat psoriatic arthritis. don't use otezla if you're allergic to it. serious allergic reactions can happen. otezla may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. some people taking otezla had depression, suicidal thoughts or weight loss. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. ♪♪ [announcer] with clearer skin girls' day out is a good day out. live in the moment. ask your doctor about otezla. deep down, i knew something was wrong. since my fatigue and light-headedness would come and go, i figured it wasn't a big deal. then i saw my doctor and found out i have afib, and that means there's about a 5 times greater risk of stroke. symptoms like irregular heartbeat, heart racing, chest pain, shortness of breath, fatigue, or light- headedness can come and go. but if you have afib, the risk of stroke is always there. if you have one or more symptoms, get checked out. holding off on seeing a doctor won't change whether or not you have afib. but if you do, making that appointment can help you get ahead of stroke risk. contact a doctor and learn more at notimetowait.com your record label is taking off. but so is your sound engineer. you need to hire. i need indeed. indeed you do. indeed instant match instantly delivers quality candidates matching your job description. visit indeed.com/hire (vo) in three seconds, this couple matching your job description. will share a perfect moment. (woman) is that? oh wow! but we got to sell our houses! (vo) well, almost perfect. don't worry. just sell directly to opendoor. (woman) yes! (vo) close in a matter of days. when life's doors open, we'll handle the house. when you put in the effort, but it starts to frizz... you skipped a step. tresemmé silk serum. use before styling for three days of weightlessly smooth hair that frizz can't beat. new tresemmé keratin smooth collection. san francisco's been through tough times. london breed led us through the pandemic, declaring an emergency before anyone else, saving thousands of lives. from growing up in the western addition housing projects to becoming mayor, london has never given up on the city that raised her. london is getting people off the streets and into care. london never gave up on me. i found a home, and my life is on the right track. london made it super easy for me to open my small business, by cutting city fees. and she's reinventing downtown to make our city vibrant again. she's building 82,000 new homes and helping first time homebuyers, just like us. and london's hiring hundreds of police officers, and arresting drug dealers. san francisco has been through difficult times, but our hard work is paying off. working together, we're building a better future for the city we all love. ad paid for by re-elect mayor london breed 2024. financial disclosures are available at sfethics.org. this morning, the biden campaign is pushing back against calls for him to leave the race after last night's debate performance, while former president trump unleashed a torrent of provable falsehoods on a variety of issues. biden's stumbling performance struggled to fend off mounting concerns abo