As Trump lawsuits unravel, hush money conviction is an exception
Legal troubles have dogged Donald Trump since he left the White House, though most cases against the once-and-future president have collapsed since his reelection last month. But one, the Manhattan case, in which a jury convicted Mr. Trump of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to cover up hush money payments during the 2016 presidential campaign, is an exception.
On Monday, the New York judge overseeing the case rejected Mr. Trump’s effort to dismiss his convictions due to presidential immunity concerns.
Why We Wrote This
A story focused onDonald Trump continues to challenge conventions, including in the courts. But a Manhattan judge has ruled that presidential immunity for “official acts” does not cover his felony convictions of falsifying business records.
Sentencing was put on hold pending the election.
The 41-page opinion from Judge Juan Merchan on Monday dismissed Mr. Trump’s appeal following a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in July that former presidents are immune from criminal prosecution for “official acts.” Mr. Trump’s hush money payments were related to “decidedly unofficial” conduct, he wrote.
In a statement, a spokesperson for Mr. Trump said that they would continue fighting the verdict.
“The logic that becoming president means you shouldn’t be held responsible for things you did before you were president” is flawed, says Matthew Galuzzo, a criminal defense attorney and former prosecutor in New York City. “I don’t think that’s what the Founding Fathers had in mind.”
Legal troubles have dogged Donald Trump since he left the White House, though most cases against the once-and-future president have collapsed since his re-election last month. But one, the Manhattan case, in which a jury convicted Mr. Trump of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to cover up hush money payments during the 2016 presidential campaign, is an exception.
On Monday, the New York judge overseeing the case rejected Mr. Trump’s effort to dismiss his convictions due to presidential immunity concerns.
Sentencing has been put on hold since the election.
Why We Wrote This
A story focused onDonald Trump continues to challenge conventions, including in the courts. But a Manhattan judge has ruled that presidential immunity for “official acts” does not cover his felony convictions of falsifying business records.
Legal experts have long contended that the prosecution brought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg is the weakest of the four cases against Mr. Trump. Still, prosecutors are fighting to preserve the verdict. Mr. Trump’s appeal, dismissed by New York state Judge Juan Merchan, is one of several lodged by the president-elect – an appeal of Monday’s ruling could be imminent as well – as courts wrestle with unprecedented legal questions arising from the first-ever felony prosecutions of a former president and a president-elect.
The 41-page opinion from Judge Merchan dismissed Mr. Trump’s appeal to vacate his conviction following a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in July that former presidents are immune from criminal prosecution for “official acts.” The landmark opinion held that a strong immunity doctrine is necessary so a president can “forcefully” exercise the Executive branch’s powers.
But Mr. Trump’s crimes in Manhattan related to “decidedly unofficial” conduct, wrote Judge Merchan, dismissing the argument that key evidence in the case qualified as official presidential acts. Ultimately, the “decidedly personal acts” of falsifying business records, he added, “poses no danger of intrusion on the authority and function of the Executive Branch.”
In a statement soon after the ruling, a spokesperson for Mr. Trump said that he will continue fighting the verdict.
“This lawless case should have never been brought, and the Constitution demands that it be immediately dismissed,” said Steven Cheung, the Trump spokesperson, according to USA Today. “The sooner these hoaxes end, the sooner our country can unite behind President Trump for the betterment of all Americans.
In a separate appeal, Mr. Trump is arguing that the conviction should be dismissed because it would present unconstitutional “disruptions to the institution of the presidency.” He could also appeal the Monday decision on the presidential immunity issue. And experts say there are several legal issues with the unusual case brought by Mr. Bragg’s office – which combined business-record charges with campaign finance violations to achieve a novel felony indictment – that could be successfully probed on appeal.
“There’s nothing surprising about the decision” on Monday, says Vinoo Varghese, a white-collar criminal defense attorney in Manhattan and a former prosecutor. “The presidential immunity arguments aren’t as strong as the arguments related to the real issues in the case.”
How courts resolve those issues remains to be seen. And this is likely the first of several thorny questions the courts will have to resolve concerning the first sitting president to be involved in criminal prosecutions.
Judge Merchan, for example, still has to rule on whether Mr. Trump’s sentencing in the Manhattan case can go ahead once he leaves office in 2029. Two federal cases against the president-elect have been dropped, citing U.S. Department of Justice policy that a sitting president can’t be prosecuted. But it’s unclear if state prosecutions are similarly barred. An ongoing case in Fulton County, Georgia, related to Mr. Trump’s efforts to overturn his 2020 election defeat, could provide an answer.
Trial court rulings are not binding on other courts, so Judge Merchan’s presidential immunity decision “is [not] going to have much authority,” says Matthew Galuzzo, a criminal defense attorney and former prosecutor in New York City. But “we’re in areas with little precedent.”
