New York Judge Upholds Trump’s Hush Money Conviction Despite Supreme Court Immunity Ruling
A New York judge, Juan Merchan, has ruled that President-elect Donald Trump’s hush money conviction remains valid, rejecting Trump’s argument that the case should be dismissed based on the landmark immunity ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court.
The decision comes after Trump’s legal team urged the court to overturn his guilty verdict in New York v. Trump, citing the Supreme Court’s July decision that U.S. presidents are entitled to broad immunity from criminal prosecution for “official actions” taken while in office.
However, Justice Merchan, who presided over Trump’s trial, sided with prosecutors, emphasizing that Trump’s conviction stemmed from unofficial conduct. In his 41-page ruling, Merchan wrote that the evidence presented during the trial focused entirely on actions outside Trump’s official duties as president.
“The Supreme Court’s own ruling made clear that not everything a president does is considered official, even if it occurs from the Oval Office,” the judge noted.
The ruling preserves Trump’s historic conviction, which, if upheld, would make him the first convicted felon to serve as U.S. president.
In May 2024, a New York jury found Trump guilty on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. The charges stemmed from Trump’s efforts to cover up reimbursements to his former lawyer, Michael Cohen, who paid $130,000 to adult film star Stormy Daniels in 2016 to keep silent about an alleged sexual encounter with Trump. Trump has consistently denied the allegations and any wrongdoing.
Reacting to the ruling, Trump spokesman Steven Cheung issued a statement to U.S. media, condemning the decision as unconstitutional and a direct violation of the Supreme Court’s precedent on presidential immunity.
“This lawless case should have never been brought, and the Constitution demands that it be immediately dismissed,” Cheung said.
The decision marks a significant legal setback for Trump as he continues to pursue his political ambitions amid mounting legal challenges. Analysts suggest that the ruling underscores the limits of presidential immunity and sets a precedent distinguishing official acts from personal conduct.
Trump’s legal team is expected to appeal the decision as the case remains a focal point ahead of the 2024 U.S. presidential election.
