11:I[8479,["349","static/chunks/349-c9bb88602114b6df.js","173","static/chunks/173-8ffc04d433c3339f.js","865","static/chunks/865-f26eeb7d8a4ff1d6.js","444","static/chunks/app/episode/%5Buuid%5D/page-e9df19c6dc9fc3dd.js"],"EpisodeClient"] 12:T49a,In Trump v. United States, the Supreme Court held that the president has "absolute immunity from criminal prosecution" for official acts.

To reach that conclusion, the High Court grappled with this question: how much power a president should have?

And some legal scholars say the ruling draws on the unitary executive theory — which, in its most extreme interpretation, gives the president sole authority over the executive branch.

But did it pave the way for Trump's second term and the constitutional questions it's raised: From the dismantling of federal agencies established by Congress to the deportation migrants to third party countries without due process?

For sponsor-free episodes of Consider This, sign up for Consider This+ via Apple Podcasts or at plus.npr.org.

Email us at considerthis@npr.org.

Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoices

NPR Privacy Policy13:T49a,In Trump v. United States, the Supreme Court held that the president has "absolute immunity from criminal prosecution" for official acts.

To reach that conclusion, the High Court grappled with this question: how much power a president should have?

And some legal scholars say the ruling draws on the unitary executive theory — which, in its most extreme interpretation, gives the president sole authority over the executive branch.

But did it pave the way for Trump's second term and the constitutional questions it's raised: From the dismantling of federal agencies established by Congre

How an obscure legal theory shaped the immunity decision and Trump's second term