As Trump lawsuits unravel, hush money conviction is an exception
Former U.S. President Donald Trump is photographed during his trial at Manhattan Criminal Court on charges of covering up hush money payments linked to extramarital affairs, in New York, April 23, 2024.
Timothy A. Clary/AP/File
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鈥檚 effort to dismiss his convictions due to presidential immunity concerns.
Sentencing has been put on hold since the election.
Why We Wrote This
Donald Trump continues to challenge conventions, including in the courts. But a Manhattan judge has ruled that presidential immunity for 鈥渙fficial acts鈥� 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鈥檚 appeal, dismissed by New York state Judge Juan Merchan, is one of several lodged by the president-elect 鈥� an appeal of Monday鈥檚 ruling could be imminent as well 鈥� as courts wrestle with unprecedented legal questions arising from the first-ever felony prosecutions of a former president and a president-elect.
The from Judge Merchan dismissed Mr. Trump鈥檚 appeal to vacate his conviction following a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in July that former presidents are immune from criminal prosecution for 鈥渙fficial acts.鈥� The landmark opinion held that a聽strong immunity doctrine is necessary so a president can 鈥渇orcefully鈥� exercise the Executive branch鈥檚 powers.
But Mr. Trump鈥檚 crimes in Manhattan related to 鈥渄ecidedly unofficial鈥� conduct, wrote Judge Merchan, dismissing the argument that key evidence in the case qualified as official presidential acts. Ultimately, the 鈥渄ecidedly personal acts鈥� of falsifying business records, he added, 鈥減oses no danger of intrusion on the authority and function of the Executive Branch.鈥�
In a statement soon after the ruling, a spokesperson for Mr. Trump said that he will continue fighting the verdict.
鈥淭his lawless case should have never been brought, and the Constitution demands that it be immediately dismissed,鈥� said Steven Cheung, the Trump spokesperson, according to. 鈥淭he 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 because it would present unconstitutional 鈥渄isruptions to the institution of the presidency.鈥� He could also appeal the Monday decision on the presidential immunity issue. And experts say there are several legal issues with聽the unusual case brought by Mr. Bragg鈥檚 office 鈥� which combined business-record charges with campaign finance violations to achieve a novel felony indictment 鈥� that could be successfully probed on appeal.
鈥淭here鈥檚 nothing surprising about the decision鈥� on Monday, says Vinoo Varghese, a white-collar criminal defense attorney in Manhattan and a former prosecutor. 鈥淭he presidential immunity arguments aren鈥檛 as strong as the arguments related to the real issues in the case.鈥�
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鈥檚 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鈥檛 be prosecuted. But it鈥檚 unclear if state prosecutions are similarly barred. An ongoing case in Fulton County, Georgia, related to Mr. Trump鈥檚 efforts to overturn his 2020 election defeat, could provide an answer.
Trial court rulings are not binding on other courts, so Judge Merchan鈥檚 presidential immunity decision 鈥渋s [not] going to have much authority,鈥� says Matthew Galuzzo, a criminal defense attorney and former prosecutor in New York City. But 鈥渨e鈥檙e in areas with little precedent.鈥�