Welcome back to Sunday Night in America. If only you believed in miracles, so would I. That was a lyrics from an old Jefferson starship song. We saw something of a miracle this week as the Supreme Court was unanimous in concluding Colorado could not kick Donald Trump off the ballot. The result was nine to zip. But was it a mirage? If you read the opinions, plural, you will see divisions. And Dobbs, the high court, sent an issue back to the states. With the Colorado a ballot ban, the court sent an issue from the states back to Congress, which sounds like a law school exam question, and I no doubt skipped class that day, but I will guarantee you Shannon Bream did not. She is the host of Fox News Sunday and our chief legal correspondent. Welcome, Shannon. All right, tell us what's going on here. The scoreboard says 9 to nothing, but there was some bickering in the locker room, perhaps. What should we take from that?

Yeah, that's a great way to put it. Bottom line, the opinion was we all agree Colorado does not have the right under this 14th Amendment, Section 3 insurrection clause, to kick a candidate off of the ballot. That is what the 9-0 was about. They were united in that. Now, one of the concurrences with Justices Sodomier, Kagan, and Jackson that felt like and read in some ways like a dissent, but it was a concurrence. They agreed with the end result. They did not like the court's expanded reasoning that it got into questions about telling Congress what its role could be or should be in solving this problem. They said basically, what the court is about normally is as narrowly as possible sticking to answering a question. But these three accused the rest of the court going farther and saying, You shouldn't have done all of this and gotten to all of these other extraneous things. Those are questions for another day. Even Justice Barrett, in her concurrence, basically said, I agree with the bottom line. We don't need to have bickering here publicly. Let's try to take the temperature down. So clearly, some divisions.

All right, I don't want to shock you, but some Democrats, like my former colleague, the law professor Jamie Raskin, have promised to introduce bills to disqualify not only Donald Trump at all, and also other Republicans. I wanted to assume you and I are teaching a law school class together, and I go to you and I say, Professor Bream, here's our exam question. Trump wins the presidency, the Democrats win House and the Senate. They're in office before he is inaugurated. Biden's still the President, and they move to disqualify him. Now, I know what would happen. You would say, Trey, we're not going to ask that question because it's crazy, and we'll pick another one. But the court seems tired of being involved in these political issues. Is that the sense you get? They don't want to be there?

Yeah, listen, if I'm the professor, people are going to want their money back because a question like that would make them all crazy. But yes, we always have the feeling the court does not want to get dragged into political conversations. Bush v. Gore is like their worst nightmare. They don't want to look like they are stepping in in any way in being political, putting a weight on the scale. But you know they have so many things this term, a couple directly related to former President Trump that can have great bearing on his campaign and the election. But they're also dealing with hot button issues like a couple of abortion cases, a couple of gun cases. Those decisions are all likely due at the end of June, early July, right before the first of the two conventions and right in the middle of the election. So as much as they would like to avoid getting dragged into things like this, and that scenario that you outlined there with a democratically controlled House and Senate seated before the potential inauguration of President Trump, that's the nightmare they would not want to get dragged into. But we know nothing should surprise us anymore, and we have to be prepared for any scenario these days.

All right, you and I are a couple of nerds. We actually listen to oral argument. I don't know why, but I listen to it. I got a very different feeling listening to the Colorado ban case than I did the presidential immunity case. I got a different vibe on the DC Court of Appeals. It's now before the high court. From a timing standpoint, what should we expect? What's your sense of how that's going to go?

Well, as Much as President Trump loved the justices earlier this week in that 9/0 decision, I'm not sure he's going to feel the same way come June because that immunity case is much tougher. Just about everybody across the legal spectrum believes it's going to be a very heavy lift for the Trump legal team to try to win on this question of where immunity stops and starts for a former president about actions that he takes related to his official actions in court. Really, the win for the Trump team is the timing, as you point out, because they're going to hear arguments April 25th, probably the end of the term before we get that. That could come sooner, but it's due by no later than the first of July, somewhere in there. But again, the trial court has been on pause. That Jack Smith trial that was supposed to start this week has been on pause. Until the Supreme Court makes a decision, only then is it unpaused. Then you know all of the pre-trial motions, discovery, all of those things will go back to being in interest, active and happening. But that means that you could get to September or October, potentially, before you could actually get to the trial.

Will the DOJ want the appearance of a special prosecutor? Actually bringing a trial against one of the primary candidates for the presidency at a time they should be having debates? Some states may be early voting at that point.

One of my favorite lawyers in the world, one of the very few lawyers I like, including myself, Shannon Bream. You are going to be extremely busy this year. So thank you for joining us on the Sunday night, and you go get some rest.

My privilege, friend.

See out there. Hey, Sean Hannity here. Hey, click here to subscribe to Fox News YouTube page and catch our hottest interviews and most compelling analysis. You will not get it anywhere else.