NEW YORK —
A judge confirmed on Monday that the hush money conviction against President-elect Donald Trump will remain in effect, despite a recent Supreme Court ruling regarding presidential immunity. This decision adds to the complexities surrounding this significant case as Trump prepares for his next term in office.
Manhattan Judge Juan M. Merchan’s ruling effectively dismisses one possible route for throwing out the case before Trump takes office next month. Although Trump’s legal team has presented multiple arguments aimed at dismissal, it is still uncertain when a sentencing date will be set.
While prosecutors have indicated they will take Trump’s upcoming presidency into account, they are steadfast in maintaining that the conviction should stand.
In May, a jury found Trump guilty on 34 counts related to falsifying business records in connection with a $130,000 payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels during the 2016 election campaign. Trump has consistently denied any allegations of wrongdoing.
The allegations center on a scheme to hide the payment to Daniels in the final days of Trump’s 2016 campaign, with the intent of preventing her claims of a past sexual encounter with the then-married businessman from coming to light. Trump maintains that there was no sexual involvement between them.
After the jury’s verdict, the Supreme Court ruled that former presidents cannot be prosecuted for actions taken during their time in office; furthermore, prosecutors cannot use those actions to bolster a case based on personal, unofficial conduct.
Trump’s legal team referenced this Supreme Court ruling to assert that the jury was exposed to inappropriate evidence, including his presidential financial disclosures, testimony from White House aides, and social media posts made during his presidency.
In his ruling on Monday, Judge Merchan rejected most of Trump’s claims that the evidence presented by the prosecution pertained to official actions, thereby invoking immunity protections.
Even if some evidence was related to official duties, the judge determined that utilizing such evidence in the context of personal acts of falsifying business records did not encroach upon the authority of the Executive Branch.
Moreover, Merchan pointed out that any potential mistakes in admitting evidence that could be challenged under an immunity claim were insignificant given the overwhelming evidence of guilt.
Prosecutors argued that the disputed evidence constituted only a minor part of their overall case.
In reaction to the ruling, Trump’s communications director, Steven Cheung, condemned Merchan’s decision as a “direct violation of the Supreme Court’s ruling on immunity and other established legal principles.”
Cheung asserted, “This unfounded case should never have been initiated, and the Constitution demands its immediate dismissal.”
The Manhattan District Attorney’s office, which is handling the prosecution, chose not to comment on the ruling.
Judge Merchan noted that the Supreme Court’s ruling on immunity highlighted that not all actions taken by a president are official. He specifically pointed out that Trump’s social media posts were categorized as personal.
Additionally, he referred to a previous federal ruling which indicated that the hush money payment and subsequent reimbursements were tied to Trump’s private matters rather than his official duties.
Trump, a Republican, is set to begin his term again on January 20. He will make history as the first former president to be convicted of a felony and the first convicted criminal to reclaim the presidency.
Recently, Trump’s legal team has made repeated attempts to have the conviction and case dismissed. Following Trump’s election victory last month, Judge Merchan indefinitely postponed the sentencing—originally scheduled for late November—to give both sides a chance to propose further actions.
Trump’s defense contended that anything short of an immediate dismissal would disrupt the transfer of power and create unconstitutional complications for the presidency.
Meanwhile, prosecutors proposed several options to uphold the historic conviction, including delaying the case until Trump leaves office in 2029, agreeing that any future sentence would not involve imprisonment, or formally closing the case while acknowledging the conviction, yet noting that sentencing and appeals remain unresolved due to his new term.
This last suggestion resembles practices some states use when a defendant passes away after conviction but before sentencing.
Trump’s attorneys dismissed this proposal as “ridiculous” and expressed strong opposition to the other alternatives suggested by the prosecution.
Over the past year, Trump has faced four indictments, with the hush money case being the only one that progressed to trial.
After the election, special counsel Jack Smith wrapped up his two federal cases, which focused on Trump’s alleged attempts to overturn the 2020 election results and accusations regarding the mishandling of classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate.
A separate state case concerning election interference in Fulton County, Georgia, is largely on hold at this time.
Trump has consistently maintained his innocence across all cases.
