Judge Rejects Trump’s Appeal to Overturn Hush-Money Conviction
NEW YORK — On Monday, a judge declined to dismiss President-elect Trump’s hush-money conviction, rejecting arguments based on the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on presidential immunity. However, the case’s overall future remains uncertain.
Manhattan Judge Juan M. Merchan’s ruling prevents a potential early resolution before the former and future president’s return to office next month. While his lawyers have additional arguments pending for dismissal, the timing—or even occurrence—of a sentencing date is unclear.
Prosecutors suggested some leniency in light of his impending presidency, but maintain that the conviction should stand.
In May, a jury found Trump guilty on 34 counts of falsifying business records related to a $130,000 hush-money payment made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels in 2016. Trump denies any wrongdoing.
The charges involved a scheme to conceal the payment to Daniels during the final stages of Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, aiming to prevent her from publicly disclosing—and thus shielding voters from hearing—her claim of a sexual encounter with the then-married businessman years prior. Trump maintains no such encounter occurred.
A month after the verdict, the Supreme Court ruled that former presidents cannot be prosecuted for official acts—actions performed while in office—and that such actions cannot be used to support cases focused solely on personal, unofficial conduct.
Trump’s lawyers subsequently used this Supreme Court decision to argue that the hush-money jury received inadmissible evidence, including Trump’s presidential financial disclosure form, testimony from White House aides, and social media posts made during his presidency.
In Monday’s ruling, Merchan dismissed most of Trump’s claims that the evidence related to official acts, thus implicating immunity protections.
The judge stated that even if some evidence pertained to official conduct, he would still conclude that the prosecutors’ use of “these acts as evidence of the decidedly personal acts of falsifying business records poses no danger of intrusion on the authority and function of the Executive Branch.”
Even with potentially erroneous introduction of evidence challengeable under an immunity claim, Merchan added, “such error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt.”
Prosecutors described the disputed evidence as a “sliver” of their overall case.
Trump communications director Steven Cheung on Monday called Merchan’s decision a “direct violation of the Supreme Court’s decision on immunity, and other longstanding jurisprudence.”
“This lawless case should have never been brought, and the Constitution demands that it be immediately dismissed,” Cheung stated.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office, which prosecuted the case, declined to comment.
Merchan’s decision noted that the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling acknowledged that “not everything the president does is official.” Trump’s social media posts, for example, were deemed personal, Merchan wrote.
He also referenced a prior federal court ruling concluding that the hush-money payment and subsequent reimbursements were related to Trump’s private life, not official duties.
Trump, a Republican, assumes office on January 20. He is the first former president convicted of a felony and the first convicted criminal elected to the presidency.
Over the past six months, his lawyers have repeatedly attempted to have the conviction and the entire case dismissed. Following Trump’s election win last month, Merchan postponed his sentencing—initially scheduled for late November—to allow defense lawyers and prosecutors to propose next steps.
Trump’s defense argued that anything short of immediate dismissal would undermine the transition of power and create unconstitutional “disruptions” to the presidency.
Meanwhile, prosecutors offered several approaches to preserving the conviction. These included: suspending the case until Trump leaves office in 2029; agreeing that any future sentence would exclude jail time; or closing the case, noting the conviction but the lack of sentencing and unresolved appeal due to his assumption of office.
The final suggestion mirrors the practice some states use when a defendant dies after conviction but before sentencing.
Trump’s lawyers labeled this concept “absurd” and also objected to the other proposals.
Trump faced four indictments last year. The hush-money case was the only one to proceed to trial.
After the election, special counsel Jack Smith concluded his two federal cases against Trump. These involved Trump’s attempts to overturn his 2020 election loss and allegations of retaining classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate.
A separate state election interference case in Fulton County, Georgia, remains largely stalled.
Trump denies wrongdoing in all cases.