Ready to launch your business? Get started with the commerce platform made for entrepreneurs. Shopify is specially designed to help you start, run and grow your business with easy customizable themes that let you build your brand, marketing tools that get your products out there. Integrated shipping solutions that actually save you time. From startups to scaleups, online in-person and on the go. Shopify is made for

entrepreneurs like you. Sign up for your Trump, is entitled to blanket immunity. decision along ideological lines. The Supreme Court has a really big ruling. The former president,

Trump, is entitled to blanket immunity from federal prosecution for, quote, official actions

that he took while in office, but not for unofficial acts. We'll have to figure out what that

means. You see, Melissa Murray is there. I'm going to introduce

her in a minute. Suffice to say this is a landmark ruling, one that only has major implications

for Donald Trump's legal entanglements, but also for every future commander-in-chief who sits

in the Oval Office. This is huge. So to break it all down, I'm joined by the perfect returning guest,

my friend Melissa Murray. She is the Stokes Professor of Law at NYU School, NYU Law School,

the co-host of the strict scrutiny podcast, an MSNBC contributor, and she is a former clerk for

Sonia Sotomayor. Melissa, thank you. Can you break this down? What does this mean? What is

absolute immunity from official acts, but not for unofficial acts? What does that mean?

Well, first, Don, thanks for having me. And I think it's worthwhile to sort of just explain what

Donald Trump was asking for when he went to the Supreme Court with this

argument. He was essentially arguing for what is a completely novel form of presidential immunity

that would shield him from criminal exposure for any official acts taken as president. So he wanted

sort of a broad-based immunity saying that anything he did because he was president, including ordering

his subordinates to engage in illegal actions like assassinating a rival, for example, those

were all outside of the scope of criminal liability.

He could never face criminal charges for that.

And to be clear, the court kind of sort of endorsed that.

They were very explicit that they weren't giving the president a blanket grant of immunity, but they came really, really close. So in this six to three opinion authored by the chief justice, and it lined up on very predictable ideological lines with all of the conservatives joining the Chief Justice's opinion, for the most part.

...