I stood up for President Trump at the Supreme Court by myself.
No client. No pay. My own expense.
Four people filed briefs in Trump v. United States as their own lawyers. I was the only one who supported President Trump. Mine was also the first friend-of-the-court brief filed after the Court agreed to hear the case, seven days before the President’s own brief.
References to public officials are for historical and biographical context and do not imply endorsement.
What my brief argued
- A former President cannot be criminally prosecuted for official acts unless the House impeaches him and the Senate convicts him first.
- Protecting the integrity of a federal election is part of a President’s job. If President Trump acted in good faith to address what he believed was election fraud, those actions should be treated as official acts.
- No court could prove or disprove fraud across multiple states in the 35 days between Election Day and the federal safe-harbor deadline. Turning in good faith to the state legislatures and Congress is an official duty, not a crime.
Why I filed it
I had no client. Nobody paid me. I covered the cost myself. I did it before I began running for Secretary of State.
I did it because I believed then, and believe now, that a country which criminally prosecutes its former Presidents for official acts will not have independent Presidents for very long.
I would file it again tomorrow.
I support President Trump today. I supported him when there was nothing in it for me, and that is the only kind of support that is worth anything.
Why this matters for Secretary of State
I argued to the Supreme Court that protecting an election is part of a President’s job. Here in Mississippi, I proved in court that Hinds County’s election safeguards had failed. Now I am asking for the office that sets the training standard for every election official in our state.
Want Matt at your church, club, or group meeting? Invite him to speak
Republican Primary · Tuesday, August 3, 2027 · Add to calendar
The filing and the legal question
The Court agreed to hear the case on February 28, 2024. I filed on March 12, seven days before President Trump filed his merits brief on March 19. The case, No. 23-939, asked whether a former President could be criminally prosecuted for conduct alleged to involve official acts while in office. My brief made a constitutional argument about presidential authority.
My brief argued that President Trump acted on what he sincerely believed had occurred. It did not ask the Supreme Court to decide whether election fraud occurred in 2020. Its central argument was this: if President Trump acted in good faith to address what he believed was election fraud, those actions should be treated as official acts. The brief also argued that the prosecution was selective, and it addressed the roles of state legislatures, Congress, and the Vice President in appointing and counting electors in 2020. Every word of it is linked above.
Read the legal basis and timing
I relied in part on the National Voter Registration Act, which declares the right to vote fundamental and states that federal, state, and local governments have a duty to promote the exercise of that right. My brief argued that addressing alleged election fraud therefore fell within the President’s official responsibilities.
The 35-day period ran from Election Day, November 3, 2020, to the December 8, 2020, federal “safe harbor” date under the law then in effect. I argued that an inability to prove complex allegations across multiple jurisdictions in that period did not establish bad faith.
View the Supreme Court docket for No. 23-939 (opens in a new tab)
“The prime directive for any President is to faithfully execute the laws.”Matt Wilson amicus brief, Summary of the Argument, p. 3
What the Court decided
On July 1, 2024, the Court held that a former President has absolute immunity within his exclusive constitutional authority, at least presumptive immunity for other official acts, and no immunity for unofficial acts.