This week the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Trump v. United States, a case that asks whether the former president is immune from criminal prosecution for conduct that occurred during his tenure in office. In this episode, Professor John Yoo of Berkeley Law School and Smita Ghosh of the Constitutional Accountability Center join Jeffrey Rosen to preview the arguments in the case, review the founders’ views on executive immunity, and discuss how the Court might decide this crucial case.
Resources:
- Trump v. United States (oral argument via C-SPAN; transcript)
- Constitutional Accountability Center, Smita Ghosh, et al, Brief of Scholars of Constitutional Law in Support of Respondents, Trump v. United States
- Smita Ghosh, “The Founding Fathers Didn’t Think Trump Should Get Immunity Either,” Newsweek, Feb 8, 2024
- John Yoo, “The Trump Immunity Case is Weak—But He Doesn’t Need it to Prevail,” Newsweek, Mar 6, 2024
- Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982)
- Blassingame v. Trump (D.C. Cir. 2023)
Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected].
Continue today’s conversation on social media @ConstitutionCtr and #WeThePeoplePodcast
Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.
You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.
