A state judge in New York has refused to dismiss the criminal hush-money case against Donald Trump, ruling that the Supreme Court’s decision on presidential immunity does not apply to the case. The judge determined that Trump’s actions, which resulted in his conviction, pertained entirely to unofficial conduct during his first term in office.
The case stems from Trump’s conviction earlier this year on 34 counts of falsifying business records. The charges relate to a $130,000 hush-money payment made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels in October 2016. Trump’s former personal attorney, Michael Cohen, facilitated the payment, which prosecutors argued was part of an effort to conceal damaging information ahead of the 2016 presidential election.
The judge reasoned that Trump’s actions were not protected under the Supreme Court’s recent ruling that grants immunity for official presidential acts. The high court’s decision established that a sitting president cannot be prosecuted for official actions taken while in office and that evidence of those actions cannot be used in a criminal case. Trump’s legal team argued that evidence related to his official acts had been improperly presented during his trial, tainting the jury’s decision and the grand jury process that led to the indictment.
Specifically, Trump’s attorneys pointed to references involving David Pecker, the former CEO of the National Enquirer’s parent company, American Media Inc., during the grand jury proceedings. They claimed this evidence improperly influenced the case against Trump. However, the judge found these arguments unpersuasive, concluding that the evidence presented to the jury pertained exclusively to Trump’s personal conduct, which falls outside the scope of presidential immunity.
The ruling emphasized that Trump’s actions were “decidedly personal” and did not interfere with the authority or functioning of the executive branch. The judge noted that any references to potentially official conduct did not alter the overwhelming weight of the evidence proving Trump’s guilt.
The Supreme Court’s immunity ruling has been a focal point for Trump’s legal defense team. The decision provided significant protections for presidents, stating that their official acts are shielded from prosecution, even when personal conduct is intertwined. Trump’s attorneys argued that this ruling applied to his case, contending that some of the evidence introduced during his trial could be classified as official acts.
Despite these claims, the judge rejected the notion that the evidence in question met the criteria for official conduct. Even if it had, the judge wrote, any error in presenting such evidence would be harmless given the substantial evidence of Trump’s guilt. The ruling further clarified that no procedural errors occurred during the trial, dismissing Trump’s broader claims about the grand jury process.
The judge’s decision underscores the distinction between personal and official conduct, even for a president. The falsified business records at the center of the case were tied to efforts to conceal the hush-money payment, which prosecutors argued constituted personal, not presidential, actions. The ruling affirmed that such conduct does not enjoy the protections outlined in the Supreme Court’s immunity decision.
In denying Trump’s motion to dismiss the case, the judge concluded that the evidence overwhelmingly supported the jury’s verdict. The decision marks another setback for Trump, who has repeatedly sought to use the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling to challenge various legal proceedings against him.
While Trump’s legal team has vowed to continue appealing the case, the judge’s ruling sends a clear message: the protections afforded to a president under the Supreme Court’s decision do not extend to actions that are personal in nature. The hush-money payments and subsequent falsification of business records, the judge determined, fell squarely into that category.
This outcome reinforces the principle that a president’s personal actions remain subject to accountability under the law, regardless of their office. As Trump navigates ongoing legal challenges, this ruling highlights the limits of presidential immunity and the enduring importance of distinguishing between official and unofficial conduct.
