The Daily Fuckup

Donald Trump’s holiday-weekend filing did not settle anything. It did, however, put a sharper edge on a fight that has been running through the Jan. 6 case for months: how far presidential immunity reaches once a president leaves office. On Dec. 24, 2023, Trump’s lawyers filed an appeal in the D.C. Circuit after the Supreme Court declined to fast-track review, continuing to press the argument that he cannot be prosecuted for conduct they say fell within his official duties as president. ([supremecourt.gov](https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23A745.html))

The filing matters less for its calendar date than for what it asks the courts to accept. Trump’s side is drawing a hard line between official acts and personal conduct, and insisting that the former should be protected from criminal exposure even after a president has left office. The Supreme Court’s docket in the case shows the dispute had already advanced to the question of whether, and to what extent, a former president can claim immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his term. ([supremecourt.gov](https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23A745.html))

That is a significant claim, but it is not the same thing as winning one. A filing is only a filing, and appellate litigation is built to test arguments that have not yet prevailed. The point of this move was to keep the immunity issue alive while the underlying election-subversion case moved forward through the courts. It also ensured that the legal system would keep wrestling with a basic constitutional question: does the presidency carry forward a shield broad enough to block criminal accountability for conduct tied to the office? ([supremecourt.gov](https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23A745.html))

The timing gave the move a holiday-weekend feel, but the substance was not novel. Trump has repeatedly leaned on expansive readings of executive power in the Jan. 6 litigation, and this appeal continued that approach. Whether judges ultimately buy that theory is the real question. For now, the filing did what these filings usually do: it preserved the fight, narrowed nothing, and left the bigger issue exactly where Trump’s lawyers wanted it — before the courts rather than resolved by them. ([supremecourt.gov](https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23A745.html))