On Monday, Judge Juan Merchan rejected a motion by former President Donald Trump’s legal team to dismiss charges brought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg on the grounds of presidential immunity. The ruling follows the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision that presidents have immunity for official acts, a key argument in Trump’s defense.
Trump’s attorneys argued that evidence presented in the trial pertained to official presidential duties and should be excluded under the immunity protections affirmed by the Supreme Court. However, Merchan ruled that the evidence was related “entirely to unofficial conduct” and thus did not qualify for immunity. He stated that even if the evidence were considered official, it did not threaten the authority of the Executive Branch.
In his ruling, Merchan asserted, “Further, even if this Court were to deem all of the contested evidence, both preserved and unpreserved, as official conduct falling within the outer perimeter of Defendant’s Presidential authority, it would still find that the People’s 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.”
The charges stem from allegations of falsifying business records related to hush money payments, which were investigated by former Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance and later prosecuted by Alvin Bragg. In a six-week trial, a jury found Trump guilty on all 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree.
Trump’s legal team, led by attorney Todd Blanche, argued that certain evidence, including testimony from former White House officials and Trump’s social media posts, constituted official acts and should not have been allowed. Despite these arguments, Merchan maintained that any errors in admitting such evidence were “harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt.”
Trump’s spokesman and incoming White House communications director Steven Cheung condemned the ruling, stating, “Today’s decision by deeply conflicted, acting Justice Merchan in the Manhattan DA Witch Hunt is a direct violation of the Supreme Court’s decision on immunity, and other longstanding jurisprudence.” Cheung also called for the case’s immediate dismissal, arguing that it obstructs the presidential transition process.
Bragg’s office previously suggested delaying the case until after Trump’s potential second term, but Trump’s attorneys rejected this proposal, citing Justice Department guidelines that prohibit indictments against sitting presidents. They argued that continuing the case disrupts Trump’s preparations to resume presidential duties, given the mandate from the 2024 election.
The Supreme Court’s recent ruling provided broad protections for former presidents regarding official acts, but this decision highlights a key legal distinction between personal and official conduct. As Judge Merchan has yet to rule on Trump’s formal motion to dismiss the case, the legal battle continues.
This ruling and the ongoing prosecution reflect an unprecedented use of legal tactics against a former president. For many conservatives, the case underscores concerns about politicized prosecutions and the integrity of the justice system. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for presidential immunity and future executive authority.