NEW YORK —
On Monday, a judge affirmed that President-elect Donald Trump’s hush money conviction remains unchanged, despite a recent Supreme Court ruling regarding presidential immunity. This development adds to the ongoing uncertainty surrounding this significant case as Trump prepares for his next term.
Manhattan Judge Juan M. Merchan’s decision closed one possible route for dismissing the case before Trump takes office again next month. While Trump’s legal team has put forth various arguments for dismissal, the timeline for a sentencing date remains uncertain.
Prosecutors have expressed a willingness to consider the implications of Trump’s forthcoming presidency, yet they are adamant that the conviction should not be overturned.
In May, a jury found Trump guilty on 34 counts related to falsifying business records linked to a $130,000 payment made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels during the 2016 election campaign. Trump has consistently maintained that he did nothing wrong.
The allegations center on an effort to keep the payment to Daniels under wraps in the last days of Trump’s 2016 campaign, aiming to prevent her claims about a past sexual encounter with the then-married businessman from surfacing. Trump asserts that there was no sexual interaction between them.
Following the jury’s verdict, the Supreme Court ruled that former presidents cannot be prosecuted for actions taken while in office; additionally, those actions cannot be used by prosecutors to bolster a case focused on personal conduct.
Trump’s legal team referenced this Supreme Court ruling in their argument, claiming that the jury was presented with inappropriate evidence, such as his presidential financial disclosures, testimony from White House staff, 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 was related to official actions and thus should be protected by immunity.
Even if some evidence pertained to official conduct, the judge determined that using such evidence in relation to personal acts of falsifying business records did not encroach on the authority of the Executive Branch.
Moreover, Merchan noted that any potential issues regarding the admissibility of evidence that could be contested under an immunity argument were insignificant in light of the compelling evidence of guilt.
Prosecutors argued that the disputed evidence was merely a small component 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 emphasized, “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, declined to comment on the ruling.
Judge Merchan highlighted that the Supreme Court’s ruling on immunity clarified that not all actions performed by a president are official. He specifically noted that Trump’s social media posts were categorized as personal in nature.
Additionally, he referenced a previous federal ruling indicating that the hush money payment and subsequent reimbursements were connected to Trump’s private matters rather than his official duties.
Trump, a Republican, is scheduled to take office again on January 20. He is notable for 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 multiple efforts to have the conviction and the case dismissed. After Trump’s election victory last month, Judge Merchan postponed the sentencing—initially set for late November—indefinitely to allow both sides to suggest further actions.
Trump’s defense argued that failing to dismiss the case immediately would disrupt the transition of power and create unconstitutional complications for the presidency.
Meanwhile, prosecutors proposed several options to uphold the historic conviction, including pausing the case until Trump leaves office in 2029, agreeing that any future sentence would exclude imprisonment, or formally closing the case while acknowledging the conviction but clarifying that sentencing and appeals remain unresolved due to his new term.
This last suggestion resembles practices in some states where a defendant dies after conviction but before sentencing.
Trump’s attorneys dismissed this proposal as “absurd” and also voiced objections to the other options put forth by prosecutors.
Throughout the past year, Trump faced four indictments, with the hush money case being the only one that proceeded to trial.
Following the election, special counsel Jack Smith concluded his two federal cases involving 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 concerning election interference in Fulton County, Georgia, is currently largely on hold.
Trump has consistently denied any wrongdoing across all these cases.
