Judge rules Trump does not have immunity from hush money conviction
A Manhattan judge rejected President-elect Donald Trump’s bid to dismiss his hush money conviction on Monday, ruling that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on presidential immunity does not apply to the evidence used in Trump’s case.
The decision, issued by Judge Juan M. Merchan, removes one potential avenue for Trump to overturn his conviction before taking office on Jan. 20. Trump was found guilty in May of falsifying business records tied to a $130,000 payment to adult film actor Stormy Daniels during the final days of his 2016 presidential campaign.
Trump, who denies Daniels’ allegations of a sexual encounter, has argued that the case should be thrown out.
Why Trump’s lawyers argued for dismissal
Trump’s legal team cited the Supreme Court’s June ruling, which states that former presidents cannot be prosecuted for official acts they performed while in office. They argued that certain evidence presented at Trump’s hush money trial fell under this immunity, including:
- Financial disclosure forms Trump filed as president.
- Testimony from White House aides.
- Social media posts Trump made while in office.
Trump’s attorneys claimed that introducing such evidence violated immunity protections and compromised the fairness of the trial.
What the judge said
Judge Juan M. Merchan rejected Trump’s arguments, ruling that even if some evidence touched on "official acts," it was harmless given the strength of the prosecution’s case.
Merchan wrote that prosecutors’ use of the evidence "poses no danger of intrusion on the authority and function of the Executive Branch." He added that any error in presenting the disputed evidence would have been insignificant because of the "overwhelming evidence of guilt."
Prosecutors have maintained that the evidence in question was only "a sliver" of their case.
Trump’s team calls the ruling unconstitutional
Trump’s communications director, Steven Cheung, criticized the decision, calling it a "direct violation of the Supreme Court’s decision on immunity."
"This lawless case should have never been brought, and the Constitution demands that it be immediately dismissed," Cheung said in a statement.
The Manhattan district attorney’s office, which brought the case, declined to comment on the ruling.
What happens next?
The future of the case remains uncertain as Trump’s legal team has raised additional arguments to seek dismissal. With Trump set to take office on Jan. 20, prosecutors have acknowledged that his presidency may require accommodations, though they insist the conviction should stand.
The hush money case is one of several legal challenges Trump faces as he prepares to begin his second term.