The Daily Fuckup

Special counsel Jack Smith’s office filed a Supreme Court brief on April 8, 2024, arguing that Donald Trump’s immunity claim should not block the federal election-interference case in Washington from moving ahead. The filing became public on April 9. The Supreme Court had already scheduled oral argument for April 25.

The brief presses a simple point: a former president does not get a permanent legal shield for conduct prosecutors say was part of an effort to overturn the 2020 election. Smith’s team argues that Trump is trying to turn presidential power into a personal defense against criminal charges, even though the Constitution does not create that kind of blanket protection.

The case is now at the high court because Trump is appealing the lower courts’ rejection of his immunity theory. The dispute goes to whether alleged official acts during a presidency can later be used to block a criminal prosecution, and how far any such protection would reach once a president leaves office. That question matters well beyond this indictment because it could shape future fights over executive power and criminal liability.

The timing also matters. With oral argument already set for April 25, the justices are on an accelerated schedule that could determine how quickly the case returns to the trial court. Smith’s brief does not just oppose delay; it asks the court to resolve the immunity question on the timetable it already set and to reject Trump’s claim on the merits.

Trump’s legal team has argued that presidents need broad protection for official conduct. Smith’s office counters that the conduct at issue was not routine decision-making or a policy dispute, but an alleged attempt to hold onto power after losing an election. The court now has to decide where, if anywhere, to draw the line between protected presidential acts and criminal conduct by a former president.