From New York Times, I'm Michael Barbero.

This is the Daily.

On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that former President Trump is entitled to broad immunity from criminal prosecution for actions that he took while in office.

My colleague, Adam Liptack, explains how that ruling will weaken the federal case against Trump for trying to overturn the last election and

will dramatically expand the power of the presidency itself.

It's Tuesday, July 2nd.

Adam, within the past few days, former President Trump experienced a major political victory at the first presidential debate against President Biden, who did quite badly, and now Trump has won a major legal victory at the Supreme

Court. He's having a good week and the Supreme Court on Monday severely undermined a case that really troubles

former President Trump and so he's got political victories and he might even say that he's got a constitutional

victory because the court in large part embraced his version of

presidential power. Okay and we're gonna get to all the details of this ruling. I want to just remind listeners about the origins of this case. It begins with the events leading up to January 6th, and it has had a pretty long journey to the High Court.

Right, the Special Counsel, Jack Smith, indicted former President Trump for what Smith said were Trump's efforts to

subvert the 2020 election and that case was chugging along until Trump's lawyers went to the district court and said,

wait a second.

The president has constitutional immunity from prosecution, at least for his official acts.

And that argument was rejected by the trial judge,

a unanimous three-judge panel of the DC circuit.

And then it goes to the Supreme Court

where people, and I gotta say including me, didn't think Trump had the best chance of prevailing

but when the case was argued the right side of the court the six justice conservative supermajority, seemed quite

taken by Trump's arguments. And what was it about Trump's arguments that seemed to

find sympathetic ears among the conservative? arguments that these lower court judges completely rejected. The conservative justices looked at the case as presenting an abstract question about the scope

...