Judge rules Trump's conviction withstands Supreme Court immunity decision

A New York judge upheld a jury’s verdict that made President-elect Trump a felon, ruling the conviction in the hush money case can withstand the Supreme Court’s new test for presidential immunity.

Judge Juan Merchan’s decision comes on the heels of Trump’s presidential election victory against Vice President Harris, when voters chose to catapult him back to the White House despite his years of legal peril.

The judge has not yet ruled on Trump’s efforts to toss the case entirely now that he is president-elect.

Trump’s attorneys contended that New York prosecutors introduced evidence during his seven-week trial that was protected by the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity doctrine.

Among other things, the challenged evidence included testimony from Trump White House aides, tweets Trump issued while in office and his government ethics form.

The judge ruled Trump failed to preserve some of his immunity objections by not raising them earlier, but regardless, none of the evidence was protected.

“The evidence related to the preserved claims relate entirely to unofficial conduct and thus, receive no immunity protections; and as to the claims that were unpreserved, this Court finds in the alternative, that when considered on the merits, they too are denied because they relate entirely to unofficial conduct,” Merchan wrote in his ruling.

After the trial, the high court held that former presidents enjoy absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for exercising core constitutional powers and at least presumptive immunity for other official acts. Unofficial conduct can be prosecuted, but the jury cannot question the motivation behind a presidential decision, the court said.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg (D) urged the judge to reject Trump’s arguments, arguing that no evidence placed before the jury was protected, and even if it was, it paled in comparison to “other overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt.”

Merchan agreed, writing that even if immunity did extend to the evidence in question, he “would still find that the People's use of these acts as evidence of the decidedly personal acts of falsifying business records poses no danger of intrusion on the authority and function of the Executive Branch, a conclusion amply supported by non-motive-related evidence.”

Trump was convicted on 34 counts of falsifying business records tied to a $130,000 hush money payment made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels ahead of the 2016 presidential election to conceal an affair, which he denies. Prosecutors with the district attorney’s office portrayed the scheme as an effort to unlawfully influence the election’s outcome.

The New York hush money case was the first-ever criminal prosecution of a former president, and the only one to have reached trial.

Trump has separately argued that his White House victory compels the dismissal of the jury’s verdict and the case in its entirety. Bragg has pushed back, instead laying out alternatives like freezing the proceedings during Trump’s term.

The judge has yet to rule on that matter.

“Today’s decision by deeply conflicted, acting Justice Merchan in the Manhattan DA Witch Hunt is a direct violation of the Supreme Court’s decision on immunity, and other longstanding jurisprudence,” Steven Cheung, Trump’s spokesperson and incoming White House communications director, said in a statement.

Bragg’s office declined to comment on the ruling.

In a separate letter, Merchan revealed that Trump also sent a Dec. 3 letter alleging juror misconduct. The judge provided sparse details but indicated the issue would be made public with redactions.

Trump’s other criminal proceedings have fared worse following his presidential win.

Special counsel Jack Smith dismissed all charges against Trump in his federal election subversion and classified documents cases, while the president-elect's Georgia criminal case is paused indefinitely as an appeals court weighs a pretrial defense challenge. Trump’s lawyers have pushed to end that case, too.

Updated 7:53 p.m.

Topics

Trump loses bid to toss ‘hush money’ conviction after immunity ruling

President-elect’s sentencing in criminal trial has already been indefinitely delayed
Financial Times - 52m
Trump loses bid to toss New York hush money conviction on immunity claim

President-elect Donald Trump was convicted of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related to a hush money payment to porn star Stormy Daniels.
CNBC - 1h
Judge rejects Trump bid to toss "hush money" conviction based on presidential immunity

A New York judge on Monday rejected President-elect Donald Trump's request to throw out his conviction in the criminal "hush money" case. Judge Juan Merchan said in a filing that the Supreme ...
CBS News - 1h
Trump not eligible for immunity in New York hush money case, judge rules

Judge Juan Merchan said the evidence related “entirely to unofficial conduct” and “poses no danger of intrusion on the authority and function of the Executive Branch.”
ABC News - 1h
Judge Denies Trump’s Bid to Throw Out Conviction Over Immunity Ruling

Justice Juan M. Merchan thwarted one of several attempts by Donald J. Trump to clear his record of 34 felonies before returning to the White House.
The New York Times - 1h
Judge to decide fate of Trump’s New York hush money conviction

The fate of President-elect Trump’s New York hush money case is now in the hands of Judge Juan Merchan, who oversaw the first historic conviction of the country’s former and now incoming president. ...
The Hill - 4d
Supreme Court won't hear case over Hawaii's rules for handguns

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up a Hawaii man's appeal of his prosecution for carrying a handgun without a license.
CBS News - Dec. 9
How Supreme Court decision could transform transgender health care

The Supreme Court seems poised to uphold a Tennessee law restricting gender transition treatments for minors. NBC News' Jo Yurcaba discusses the potential far-reaching implications of the case and ...
NBC News - Dec. 4
Supreme Court Decision Could Affect Other Trans Rights Cases

The ruling could set a precedent for several challenges to state laws regarding sports participation, bathroom use and health care for adults.
The New York Times - Dec. 4