This is the Cato Daily Podcast for Friday, July 5th, 2024. I'm Caleb Brown.

The Supreme Court has delivered to this and future President's absolute immunity for

prosecution for some official acts. What constitutes an official act or a core

constitutional function remains to be seen.

Heidos Clark Neely discusses the case of Trump v United States.

So the Supreme Court appears to have given

presidents some immunity for actions taken as president

and they appear to try to draw some lines about buckets of actions that a president could take that would either

grant immunity or not.

How do you view the way the Supreme Court looked at this question because you know as you've said

before that these are serious questions we don't want a president to feel hamstrung in the

execution of his duties, but there are things presidents can do that are

criminal and ought to be punished.

Yeah, let's say up front, this is a tough case.

It's an overuse cliche, but this is really,

you know, we've got the cilla of genuinely criminal behavior

on one hand in the caribdis of the abuse of the power to prosecute a president

after they leave office on the one hand and there's not going to be I don't

think any entirely satisfactory resolution of that tension. My perception and the perception I think of many

commentators is that the grant of presidential immunity in this decision was

quite broad, more broad than I think most of us expected, and created a class of presidential

activities involving

...