Supreme Court's landmark decision grants former presidents broad immunity from criminal prosecution

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has granted former presidents broad immunity from criminal prosecution for official actions taken while in office. This decision, announced on Monday, specifically pertains to former President Donald Trump, affirming his entitlement to immunity from federal prosecution. The landmark ruling has sparked a wave of new questions and discussions surrounding the legal implications for past and future presidents. Jan Crawford, reporting on the Supreme Court's decision, highlights the far-reaching impact it may have on the accountability and legal scrutiny of former presidents. The ruling sets a precedent that could shape the boundaries of presidential immunity and the extent to which past actions can be subject to criminal prosecution. This development marks a significant moment in the ongoing debate over the legal constraints on presidential authority. Bob Costa delves into the reactions from the Trump campaign following the Supreme Court's ruling. The decision to grant immunity to former President Trump has elicited mixed responses, with supporters viewing it as a validation of his presidency while critics raise concerns about accountability and transparency in government. The ruling has reignited debates over the balance between executive power and legal accountability in the highest office of the land. As the implications of the Supreme Court's decision continue to unfold, legal experts, politicians, and the public are closely monitoring the broader ramifications for the presidency and the rule of law. The ruling underscores the complexities of navigating the intersection between presidential authority and legal oversight, raising important questions about the scope of immunity for past and future occupants of the Oval Office.