Judge Rules Trump Not Protected by Presidential Immunity in Hush Money Case

In a significant legal setback for former President Donald Trump, Judge Juan Merchan ruled on Monday that Trump’s felony conviction in the New York hush money case will not be dismissed on the basis of presidential immunity. The ruling denies one of the primary arguments Trump’s legal team had presented in an effort to overturn his May conviction on 34 counts of falsifying business records.

Trump’s lawyers had argued that a recent Supreme Court decision granting broad immunity to presidents for official acts during their time in office should apply to Trump’s case. However, Judge Merchan’s 41-page decision rejected that argument, asserting that the evidence presented by the Manhattan district attorney’s office was unrelated to Trump’s official duties as president. Merchan stated that the conduct in question was "entirely unofficial" and therefore not subject to immunity protections.

“This Court concludes that if error occurred regarding the introduction of the challenged evidence, such error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt,” Merchan wrote. He further clarified that even if the evidence had been related to official acts, the court would still have denied the motion to dismiss due to the "harmless error" doctrine.

The decision is just one of several legal strategies Trump’s team has pursued to challenge the conviction. His lawyers argued that, as president, he was legally protected from criminal prosecution, but Merchan has not yet ruled on that broader claim. Trump's legal team is also expected to appeal the latest ruling, which could keep the case tied up in the court system for months or even years.

Steven Cheung, a spokesperson for Trump’s legal team, called Merchan’s decision “a direct violation of the Supreme Court’s decision on immunity, and other longstanding jurisprudence.” Trump’s legal team maintains that his role as president should have shielded him from the criminal charges stemming from payments made to silence adult-film star Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election.

The charges against Trump stem from payments to his former lawyer, Michael Cohen, to reimburse a $130,000 payment made to Daniels in order to prevent her from going public with claims of an alleged affair. Trump has denied any affair with Daniels. The payments were subsequently listed as legal expenses in Trump’s business records, leading to the falsifying business records charges. A Manhattan jury convicted Trump on 34 counts in May, and although he was initially scheduled to be sentenced in July, the sentencing was delayed twice due to the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling. Sentencing has now been postponed until after the 2024 election.

Merchan’s ruling also addressed claims by Trump’s lawyers regarding alleged juror misconduct. Earlier this month, Trump’s defense team raised concerns about the conduct of certain jurors but did not file a formal motion to have the conviction dismissed on those grounds. In a letter to the attorneys, Judge Merchan noted that the defense team would need to file an official motion if they wished to pursue that argument. The judge stated that while allegations of juror misconduct should be thoroughly investigated, the court could not act based on "mere hearsay and conjecture."

Merchan also ordered the release of certain filings related to the alleged juror misconduct but required that sensitive information be redacted to protect the safety and privacy of the jurors. “This Court cannot allow the public filing of unsworn, and admittedly contested statements,” Merchan wrote, adding that doing so would “threaten the safety of the jurors and violate the agreed-upon Order Regulating Disclosure of Juror Information.”

The Manhattan district attorney’s office has argued that the felony conviction should stand despite Trump’s status as a former president and his current candidacy for re-election. While the district attorney’s office acknowledged that the sentence could be delayed or modified, they insisted that dismissing the conviction would be an “extreme remedy” and not justified by the facts of the case.

As of now, Trump’s legal team is expected to file appeals and continue to pursue arguments based on presidential immunity. However, Merchan’s ruling marks a major setback for Trump’s efforts to have his conviction thrown out. The case remains one of the most high-profile legal battles faced by a former U.S. president and could have lasting implications for how presidential immunity is applied in criminal cases.

For now, Trump’s next steps remain uncertain, but the ongoing legal battle is likely to play a significant role in the upcoming 2024 presidential election, where Trump is running for office once again. Observers are closely watching how this case, along with Trump’s other legal challenges, could impact his political future and the precedent it sets for future presidents.