In the latest episode of our podcast, The Divided Argument, Dan Epps and I discuss the court’s immunity ruling in Trump v. United States in detail. We ended up far less divided on the issue, with both of us generally agreeing that the consequences of the opinion were rather uncertain and not necessarily bad, but that the legal basis and craftsmanship of the opinion were far, far worse. many. You can listen to the full episode of “Back on the Island” here:
In other recent episodes, we analyzed:
SEC v. Jaxey and Grants Pass v. Johnson “Eternal Hope.” (Here’s my previous post about Jarkesy, generally sympathetic to what most people end up doing.)
United States v. Rashimi and Ehlinger v. United States “Adjacent Felony.” (This is my previous post about Rashmi, generally sympathetic to what most people end up doing.)
Garland v. Cargill, FDA v. Hippocratic Medical Alliance, John Q. Hammons v. United States Trustee “small victories.”
Tomorrow I will publish another article about the term in general and the Trump case in particular.
