Topline
Former President Donald Trump told a Manhattan court on Monday he wants his criminal conviction to be thrown out after the Supreme Court gave him some immunity from prosecution, multiple outlets report, as the high court’s ruling throws into doubt some evidence that prosecutors used in their case.
Former President Donald Trump sits in the courtroom during his hush money trial at Manhattan … [+]
Key Facts
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that ex-presidents including Trump have “absolute immunity” from prosecution based on any acts that fall within their “core constitutional powers”—like appointing officials—and are presumed to be immune from being punished for any of their official acts, but can still be prosecuted for anything outside of their duties as president.
Trump’s lawyers asked Monday if they could file a formal request for his criminal conviction to be thrown out based on the ruling, The New York Times first reported, after Trump was convicted on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records based on reimbursement checks he sent to ex-attorney Michael Cohen for paying adult film star Stormy Daniels.
The ex-president’s attorneys claimed some evidence used in the case should be excluded under the immunity ruling, ABC News reports, after the Supreme Court said evidence concerning a president’s official acts cannot be used at trial—even if the alleged crime they’re being tried for isn’t immune from prosecution.
Trump previously unsuccessfully asked the court to delay his hush money trial until the Supreme Court ruled on immunity, arguing some evidence prosecutors planned to use at trial from when he was president was covered by immunity, including public statements and an ethics form showing his reimbursement to Cohen.
Prosecutors did use that evidence at trial—which Trump could now challenge—including statements Trump made in 2018 after Cohen’s payment to Daniels became public suggesting the lawyer wouldn’t “flip,” which Cohen testified he interpreted as the then-president urging him to stay loyal and not tell prosecutors about Trump’s role in the hush money scheme.
It’s unclear whether those public statements would be covered by the immunity ruling: The Supreme Court said in its ruling that while most of Trump’s public comments as president would fall within his official duties, “there may … be contexts in which the President speaks in an unofficial capacity,” which would not be eligible for immunity.
Get Forbes Breaking News Text Alerts: We’re launching text message alerts so you’ll always know the biggest stories shaping the day’s headlines. Text “Alerts” to (201) 335-0739 or sign up here.
Surprising Fact
In addition to the evidence prosecutors used, Trump could also try to claim that his reimbursement checks to Cohen—which were paid in 2017, after he took office—are covered by immunity. But that could be tricky: A federal judge already ruled the checks weren’t part of his official duties in July 2023, when Trump was trying to move the indictment against him to federal court. “The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that the matter was … purely a personal item of the President—a cover-up of an embarrassing event,” U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein wrote. “Hush money paid to an adult film star is not related to a President’s official acts. It does not reflect in any way the color of the President’s official duties.”
What To Watch For
It’s unclear whether Judge Juan Merchan, who oversees Trump’s hush money case, will allow the ex-president to try and have the verdict thrown out now. The Times notes the judge could decide the issue would be better considered when Trump formally appeals the verdict, as the deadline for post-trial motions before Trump’s sentencing has already passed. Trump is scheduled to be sentenced in the hush money case on July 11, though it remains unclear whether Merchan will order Trump to spend time in prison. While each count Trump was convicted of is punishable by a fine or up to four years in prison, legal experts have speculated the ex-president likely won’t face prison time as a first-time offender.
Tangent
The immunity ruling is likely to affect all four criminal cases against Trump. The Supreme Court’s ruling is part of the proceedings in Trump’s federal case for trying to overturn the 2020 election, which will now go back to the lower court to determine which acts outlined in the indictment count as official acts, and which are unofficial acts that can still be prosecuted. Trump has also claimed to have immunity in his federal case for allegedly withholding White House documents, because he claims to have designated documents as being “personal” while he was still president. He has also made similar immunity claims to the federal election case in his state case for trying to overturn the 2020 election in Georgia. Proceedings in both cases—whose trials have already been indefinitely delayed—are likely to be prolonged further as the immunity claims get litigated.
Key Background
Trump was indicted in Manhattan in March 2023 on charges stemming from Cohen’s hush money payments, and was found guilty by a jury in May following a weekslong trial. Cohen paid Daniels $130,000 right before the 2016 election to cover up her allegations of having an affair with Trump—which the ex-president has denied—and Trump then reimbursed Cohen through a series of checks paid throughout 2017, which prosecutors contended were falsely labeled as being for legal services. Trump pleaded not guilty to the charges, and his lawyers insisted at trial that the payments to Cohen were correctly labeled, given that Cohen was serving as Trump’s personal attorney at the time. Cohen testified Trump was personally involved with the hush money and reimbursement schemes, telling the jury he could not have paid Daniels without Trump’s consent. The Supreme Court’s immunity ruling on Monday came after lower courts had long rejected Trump’s claims of immunity—which has become a frequent legal defense for him as litigation against the ex-president has piled up—and Trump went to the high court after district and appeals court judges ruled against him having immunity in the federal election case. The court’s 6-3 ruling has already drawn widespread criticism from Trump critics, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in her dissent against the opinion that it “makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law.”