On Wednesday, President-elect Donald Trump asked the Supreme Court Discontinue criminal proceedings against him In New York State Court.
Trump was convicted last May in New York of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related to hush payments to an adult film actress during the 2016 presidential election. He is currently scheduled to be sentenced on Friday, and that hearing will go ahead unless the Supreme Court intervenes
In fact, in this case the immediate bet, which is known as Trump v. New YorkThere’s less: Whatever the court decides to do, Trump is unlikely to face any punishment in the case. Judge Juan Marchan, the New York judge presiding over the case, recently indicated that he would sentence Trump to an “unconditional discharge” — meaning that even if Trump is found guilty, Shall not serve imprisonment, probation or fines.
And the Supreme Court’s Republican majority already granted Trump broad immunity from prosecution last July for crimes he committed using his official presidential powers. The case involved alleged criminal actions Trump took while he was president, so the court did not formally rule that he could be prosecuted for crimes he committed before taking office, such as business dealings. Falsification of records. However, the July decision contains language that limits evidence that can be used against Trump in criminal proceedings unrelated to his official conduct.
Still, the lawsuit may have some long-term implications. Trump wants to extend the already broad immunity from legal consequences that Republican justices granted him last July. Among other things, immunity decisions Trump v. United States (2024) establish that Trump cannot be prosecuted if he unlawfully orders the Justice Department to bring fraud cases against his political enemies. In contrast, this new case involves crimes committed before Trump won the first election. So a decision in Trump’s favor could further increase his legal immunity.
It is easy to imagine this court ruling again for Trump. Many of Trump’s arguments in his latest briefing closely track the logic of the July decision. And the kind of judge who signs off on that decision is unlikely to be concerned about giving Trump too much legal immunity.
What are the specific legal issues? Trump v. New York?
Asking whether the doctrine of presidential immunity requires New York to drop its current lawsuit against Trump is like asking if your daughter’s imaginary friend likes ice cream. That imaginary friend is the doctrine that former presidents are immune from criminal prosecution. It didn’t exist until 2024 – why President Gerald Ford needed it Pardon former President Richard Nixon In 1974, for example, if Nixon was already immune? – and has no basis in the constitutional text.
As a creation of the Supreme Court, the immunity doctrine can say whatever the majority of justices want, and therefore, whether it applies in New York depends on the personal will of the justices.
said Trump’s latest brief to the justices, which Written by Solicitor General-designate John SauerMakes a strong case that, if you consider the court’s July decision valid, that decision requires New York to halt the sentencing process against Trump.
Broadly speaking, Sauer contends that allowing the sentence to run on the schedule would constitute a violation Trump Decide in three ways.
First, Marchan allowed testimony from White House advisers, as well as other evidence that was arguably produced while Trump was conducting his official actions as president. The Republican justices’ July decision said former presidents have broad immunity from prosecution for their official activities in office and also said a prosecutor “Invite juries to examine acts for which a president is immune from prosecution“
Second, Sauer argues that Trump is immune from any criminal activity while president-elect. This is the weakest of Sauer’s three arguments. In a July ruling, the court said “The Justice Department has ‘long recognized’ that the ‘separation of powers precludes criminal prosecution of a sitting president..’” But even if the Court agrees with the Judiciary on this point, a president-elect is still not a sitting president.
That said, it’s unclear if the court sided with Trump on the issue would have much future impact. Any decision would only affect Trump or future presidents convicted of crimes. Trump is the only president in American history to be convicted of a crime, much less convicted, and then re-elected to the presidency.
Finally, Sauer argues that all remaining criminal proceedings against Trump should be dropped while the incoming president challenges his conviction in New York’s appeals court. This is perhaps Sauer’s strongest argument, thanks to some of the language in the July opinion that supports Trump’s current argument.
The July decision stated that “The essence of immunity is ‘the right of the holder not to answer for his conduct in court’.” And the decision further suggests that “questions of immunity are reviewable before trial because the essence of immunity is the right not to be subject to prosecution.” All of this suggests that Trump cannot be forced to answer for his criminal actions in New York state court — or anywhere else — until Not until the appeal resolves the question of whether he is immune from prosecution.
Of course, there are plausible arguments refuting Sauer’s claims. Marchan argued, for example, that even if testimony from the president’s associates should not have been accepted at trial, it “The error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of guiltBut, realistically, the question of whether to delay Trump’s sentencing Friday will be decided by the same six Republican officials who recently invented a new legal doctrine shielding Trump from criminal prosecution.
Sauer, in other words, does not need to make a good legal argument to delay the hearing. He just needs to make an argument that is good enough to convince the six officials who have already backed down to protect their political party leader.
