Hiring isn't just about finding someone willing to take the job.

You need the right person with a right background who can move your business forward.

If you want candidates who match what you're looking for, trust Indeed sponsored jobs.

And listeners of the show will get a 100-pound sponsored job credit to help get your job the premium status it deserves at Indeed.com slash broadcast. Just go to

Indeed.com slash broadcast right now and support this show by saying you heard about Indeed on

this podcast. Indeed.com slash broadcast. Terms and conditions apply. Hiring, do it the right way

with Indeed.

I'm John Batchel. I welcome my good colleague Richard Epstein of the Civitas Institute.

Civitas Outlook is where Richard posts his material, but right now we're going to take him to the immediate future, which is the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court has pending a very important decision about tariffs,

but before there, we need to go to the claim by the Vice President of the United States,

Mr. Vanz, that the ICE agents who are conducting federal authority across the country are exempt from prosecution by state prosecutors in the event of a suspect crime.

In this case, it turns on the matter of Minneapolis and the tragedy of the death of a young mother named Good, and the ambition of the state prosecutor

and the state authorities

to bring the ICE agent before the courts.

Mr. Vance has said he's immune.

The question here turns on the Supreme Court eventually,

is there a case that offers precedent?

In Reason magazine, there's a column by Damon Root, who argues that the case is not as simple

as saying he's immune.

And he points to the 1906 case, Drury v. Lewis, where the court held that the circuit court

was right to say that the perpetrator of a

...