A Manhattan judge on Monday denied President-elect Donald Trump’s request to dismiss his hush money conviction, despite a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity. The decision leaves the future of the historic case in limbo, with no clear timeline for sentencing.
Manhattan Judge Juan M. Merchan’s ruling blocked one potential avenue for Trump’s legal team to escape the case ahead of his return to office on January 20. While his lawyers have raised additional arguments for dismissal, it remains uncertain when, or if, a sentencing date will be set.
Trump was convicted in May of 34 counts of falsifying business records related to a $130,000 hush money payment made to porn actress Stormy Daniels during the 2016 presidential campaign. Prosecutors say the payment was part of an effort to suppress Daniels’ claim of an affair with the married businessman. Trump has consistently denied any sexual encounter.
The case gained further attention after the Supreme Court ruled last month that former presidents cannot be prosecuted for actions taken in their official capacity, such as duties related to their presidency. Trump’s lawyers argued that evidence related to his time in office, including his presidential financial disclosure form and social media posts, should have been excluded. They contended that the evidence violated his immunity protections.
In his ruling, Merchan rejected these claims, emphasizing that even if some of the evidence were related to official conduct, it did not interfere with the functioning of the Executive Branch. He also stated that any potential error in introducing such evidence was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt. Prosecutors had previously described the contested evidence as a small portion of their overall case.
Trump’s communications director, Steven Cheung, responded by calling the decision a “direct violation” of the Supreme Court’s ruling and other legal precedents. He further argued that the case should have been dismissed outright.
Merchan also referenced a prior federal court ruling that concluded the hush money payment was a personal matter, not related to Trump’s official duties. He emphasized that not all of the former president’s actions could be considered official, citing examples such as Trump’s social media activity.
The case remains a significant moment in legal history as Trump, the first former president convicted of a felony, prepares for his second term in office. Defense lawyers have made multiple attempts to have the conviction dismissed, with some arguing that continuing the case during Trump’s presidency would cause unconstitutional disruptions.
The conviction, however, remains intact, and the next steps in the case are uncertain as both prosecutors and defense lawyers continue to explore possible outcomes. Trump, who was indicted four times last year, faces other legal challenges, but the hush money case is the only one that has reached trial.
