NEW YORK —
A judge ruled on Monday that President-elect Donald Trump’s hush money conviction will stand, despite a recent Supreme Court ruling concerning presidential immunity. This decision adds to the uncertainty surrounding the landmark case as Trump’s next term approaches.
Manhattan Judge Juan M. Merchan’s ruling eliminates one potential avenue for dismissing the case before Trump resumes office next month. Although his legal team has introduced various arguments for dismissal, it remains unclear if or when a sentencing date will be established.
Prosecutors have indicated a willingness to consider Trump’s upcoming presidency, yet they firmly maintain that the conviction should remain intact.
In May, a jury found Trump guilty on 34 counts of falsifying business records connected to a $130,000 payment made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels during the 2016 election. Trump has consistently denied any wrongdoing.
The accusations revolve around a plot to conceal the payment to Daniels in the final days of Trump’s 2016 campaign, aiming to prevent her allegations of a past sexual encounter with the then-married businessman from becoming public knowledge. Trump insists there was no sexual contact between them.
Following the jury’s verdict, the Supreme Court ruled that former presidents cannot face prosecution for actions taken while in office; moreover, prosecutors cannot leverage those actions to support a case focused on personal, unofficial conduct.
Trump’s legal representatives cited this Supreme Court ruling to argue that the jury was presented with improper evidence, including his presidential financial disclosure, testimony from White House aides, and social media posts made during his presidency.
In his ruling on Monday, Judge Merchan dismissed most of Trump’s claims that the evidence presented by prosecutors related to official actions and thus invoked immunity protections.
Even if some evidence was related to official conduct, the judge concluded that using such evidence in the context of personal acts of falsifying business records did not infringe upon the authority of the Executive Branch.
Moreover, Merchan stated that any potential errors in admitting evidence that could be challenged under an immunity claim were inconsequential given the overwhelming evidence of guilt.
Prosecutors contended that the contested evidence constituted merely a minor portion of their overall case.
In response to the ruling, Trump’s communications director, Steven Cheung, criticized Merchan’s decision as a “direct violation of the Supreme Court’s ruling on immunity and other established legal principles.”
Cheung asserted, “This baseless case should never have been initiated, and the Constitution requires its immediate dismissal.”
The Manhattan District Attorney’s office, responsible for prosecuting the case, opted not to comment on the ruling.
Judge Merchan noted that the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling emphasized that not all actions taken by a president are official. In fact, he pointed out that Trump’s social media posts were deemed personal in nature.
Additionally, he referenced a prior federal ruling indicating that the hush money payment and subsequent reimbursements related to Trump’s private affairs rather than his official responsibilities.
Trump, a Republican, is set to take office on January 20. He holds the distinction of being the first former president to be convicted of a felony and the first convicted criminal to reclaim the presidency.
In recent months, Trump’s legal team has made a series of attempts to have the conviction and the case thrown out. Following Trump’s election victory last month, Judge Merchan postponed the sentencing—originally slated for late November—indefinitely to allow both defense and prosecution to propose further actions.
Trump’s defense argued that anything short of an immediate dismissal would disrupt the transfer of power and result in unconstitutional complications for the presidency.
In the meantime, prosecutors suggested several options to maintain the historic conviction, including pausing the case until Trump departs office in 2029, agreeing that any future sentence would not include imprisonment, or formally closing the case while acknowledging the conviction but noting that sentencing and appeals remain unresolved due to his new term.
This final suggestion mirrors practices some states employ when a defendant passes away after conviction but before sentencing.
Trump’s attorneys dismissed this proposal as “absurd” and also expressed objection to the other alternatives suggested by prosecutors.
Throughout last year, Trump faced four indictments, with the hush money case being the only one that proceeded to trial.
After the election, special counsel Jack Smith concluded his two federal cases, which pertained to Trump’s alleged attempts to overturn the 2020 election results and accusations of mishandling classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate.
A separate state case regarding election interference in Fulton County, Georgia, is largely on hold at this time.
Trump has consistently denied any wrongdoing across all cases.
