This is the Cato Daily Podcast for Friday, April 26, 2004.

I'm Caleb Brown.

Just what kind of immunity should presidents have for acts they take while president, even

acts that are clearly criminal in any other context.

That's part of what the Supreme Court will consider following yesterday's oral argument where

Donald Trump's lawyers argued that

immunity from prosecution for former presidents should be extremely broad.

Cato's Clark Neely discusses the case and how the high court might weigh Trump's various pending criminal charges.

Clark, to the best of your ability, what were Trump's lawyers arguing before the US Supreme Court?

I think the most charitable take on their argument is that of necessity a president and

former president must have at least some immunity from criminal prosecution for at least

some of the decisions and actions that they undertook while they were president.

That's not a frivolous argument. You know you think about the kinds of decisions

that presidents make. Sauer, who's Trump's lawyer,

used the following illustration in his intro.

What about President Obama's decision

to use drones to take out people abroad,

including in one case, if somebody who was an American citizen do we really

want presidents worried about potentially being prosecuted for murder after they

leave office that is not a frivolous question all right so but beyond that

Trump's lawyer was peppered with some questions, notably from Justice Sotomayor.

What if the president decided that a political rival was is in this case right is trying to to be dangerous or bad or something and had them executed.

...