The beat is here live in Washington today tomorrow morning.

I'll be reporting inside the Supreme Court as it hears this pretty long shot challenge

to try to bar Trump from the presidential ballot in certain states.

And that effort is a legal long shot because Trump has not been charged or

convicted of insurrection.

And while the court weighs that issue tomorrow, it will soon decide whether to intervene

in the related case about

prosecutor Jack Smith putting Trump on trial for trying to overthrow his own

20-20 loss. Now that case is where Jack Smith won big yesterday, a key court ruling that Citizen

Trump is indeed subject to prosecution and is answerable in court for his conduct.

Now if this were a movie, these rulings and cases right now colliding might almost seem too coordinated like the second or third act of the film where they're trying to really show you there's a clash

between law and a very certain candidate because the week has now begun with these judges

unanimously ruling a former president can be tried for stealing an election.

Days later though the highest court in the land will take this challenge to

states trying to bar that same candidate for similar conduct.

So what is the distinction here? Well Trump lost this appeal

yesterday because he's not above the law. He is below the DOJ and Jacksmith

when it comes to his own conduct and being accountable for it, even if he also, as a matter of his job history, once oversaw the federal government, including the DOJ as president.

So that case is back on track unless the Supreme Court wades in.

Well tomorrow's case is about whether random states and local judges can simply decide and

announce that Trump committed insurrection before he even goes on trial.

In other words, is it constitutional and fair to ban candidates and basically decide

...