A New York judge on Monday rejected former President Donald Trump's argument that his conviction for falsifying business records should be dismissed under the Supreme Court's ruling on presidential immunity. The ruling represents a significant blow to Trump's legal team as they seek to overturn the first criminal conviction of a U.S. president or former president.
Judge Juan Merchan's 41-page decision upheld Trump's May conviction on 34 felony counts, asserting that the acts in question were "decidedly personal" and unrelated to Trump's official duties as president. The conviction stems from a $130,000 hush money payment made to adult-film actress Stormy Daniels during the final days of Trump's 2016 campaign to keep her allegations of an affair from going public. Trump has denied the affair and pleaded not guilty.
Merchan wrote that the Supreme Court's recent decision shielding presidents from prosecution for official acts does not apply in this case, as the falsification of business records to conceal the payments was "unofficial conduct." He added, "Even if this Court did find that the disputed evidence constitutes official acts under the auspices of the Trump decision, which it does not, the defendant's motion is still denied as introduction of the disputed evidence constitutes harmless error."
The ruling refutes Trump's claims that evidence introduced at trial, including testimony from former White House aides Hope Hicks and Madeleine Westerhout, improperly implicated presidential immunity. Merchan argued that using such evidence to demonstrate personal misconduct did not encroach upon the executive branch's authority.
Trump's team swiftly criticized the decision. Steven Cheung, a spokesperson for Trump, called the ruling a "direct violation of the Supreme Court's decision on immunity, and other longstanding jurisprudence." He added, "This lawless case should have never been brought, and the Constitution demands that it be immediately dismissed."
Prosecutors have defended the conviction, stating that the evidence in question represented only "a sliver" of their case and that the jury's decision was based on overwhelming proof of guilt. While they have agreed to delay sentencing until after Trump's upcoming presidential term, they argue that overturning the conviction would be an "extreme remedy" unsupported by the facts.
The hush money case marks an unprecedented legal and political saga. Trump was convicted of orchestrating a scheme to reimburse his then-lawyer Michael Cohen for the payment to Daniels, disguising the transaction as legal expenses to avoid scrutiny. The payment was allegedly intended to prevent damaging allegations from surfacing during the 2016 election.
Trump's legal team is expected to appeal Merchan's ruling, further delaying the resolution of the case. Additional motions remain pending, including arguments that Trump's status as a sitting president-elect should bar criminal proceedings. The case could remain tied up in the courts for months or even years.
Beyond the legal ramifications, the case has stirred political tensions. Trump has described the prosecution as a politically motivated attack led by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, a Democrat. The former president has consistently denied any wrongdoing, characterizing the charges as part of a broader effort to undermine his 2024 campaign.
Merchan also addressed allegations of juror misconduct raised by Trump's defense team. While Trump's lawyers have yet to file a formal motion on the issue, Merchan stated that "mere hearsay and conjecture" could not be the basis for judicial action. The judge ordered the attorneys to release filings related to the allegations with appropriate redactions to protect juror anonymity.
