This is the Cato Daily Podcast for Saturday, July 13th, 2024.

I'm Caleb Brown.

The Supreme Court's decision in Trump v United States was one of the least

originalist opinions in recent memory according to Cato's Walter

Olson.

It invented immunities for the chief executive of the federal government and further made it more difficult

to even determine if actions taken by that chief executive fall outside of those entirely

novel immunity protections.

We spoke earlier this week.

In the decision from the U. the US Supreme Court in Trump v United States, the Supreme Court attempted

to give a president, some immunity, for certain actions.

And getting down into the weeds of actually what that means,

it's a pretty big and open question at this point, isn't it?

It is both big and open.

It is open because the Supreme Court, for all its discussion, remained vague

and left it uncertain how it would rule

when issues come back as they very likely will

in this case for another round that the Supreme Court. And of course it's big because

there are very few issues that are as big as the question of whether or not the

president is to be held to the same laws as everyone else.

And the answer seems to be no, at least in many cases.

Certainly, the answer is no as to many presidential responsibilities and here I'll just

...