The Daily Fuckup

Donald Trump’s Supreme Court filing pressed a hard version of his immunity claim: if the conduct at issue was an official act, a former president should not face criminal prosecution unless Congress first impeached and convicted him. The court’s docket shows Trump’s merits brief was filed on March 19, 2024, not April 8; April 8 was the government’s response deadline and filing date. ([supremecourt.gov](https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=%2Fdocket%2Fdocketfiles%2Fhtml%2Fpublic%2F23-939.html))

That distinction matters because the case turned on Trump’s own argument, not on a settled rule. In the government’s response, the Justice Department said Trump was asking the court to treat Senate conviction as a condition before prosecution for official conduct — a theory the department rejected as contrary to the Constitution’s text, structure and history. ([justice.gov](https://www.justice.gov/d9/2024-06/united_states_v._trump_final.pdf))

The Supreme Court granted review on Feb. 28, 2024, and set expedited merits briefing. Trump’s brief came due on March 19. The United States filed its response on April 8. The justices set argument for April 25. ([supremecourt.gov](https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=%2Fdocket%2Fdocketfiles%2Fhtml%2Fpublic%2F23-939.html))

Trump’s lawyers argued that impeachment and conviction should come first for prosecution tied to official acts. The Justice Department said that view would give Congress a veto over criminal cases and would not match the historical record, which includes prosecutions that did not wait for impeachment and conviction. ([justice.gov](https://www.justice.gov/d9/2024-06/united_states_v._trump_final.pdf))

The dispute was not just about one defendant’s case. It asked the justices to decide how much criminal immunity, if any, follows a president out of office when the alleged conduct happened while he was still in power. If the court accepted Trump’s theory, impeachment would become a much bigger gatekeeper for future prosecutions of presidential conduct. If it rejected the theory, the decision would still define how far official-act immunity reaches after a president leaves office. ([supremecourt.gov](https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=%2Fdocket%2Fdocketfiles%2Fhtml%2Fpublic%2F23-939.html))