A New York judge ruled on Monday that Donald Trump cannot use presidential immunity to overturn his felony conviction in the hush money case because the evidence tied to the conviction involves unofficial conduct, not protected official acts.
Judge Juan Merchan rejected one of Trump’s key arguments to dismiss his May guilty verdict on 34 counts of falsifying business records.
In his 41-page ruling, Merchan addressed the question of presidential immunity, stating that the Supreme Court’s decision granting broad immunity for official acts did not apply in this case.
He clarified that the evidence presented by the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office was tied to Trump’s unofficial conduct and was therefore not protected.
Read Also: Presidential pardon: Eight facts to know about Hunter Biden’s case
The judge wrote that the contested evidence “related entirely to unofficial conduct” and does not warrant immunity protections. “This Court concludes that if error occurred regarding the introduction of the challenged evidence, such error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt,” Merchan stated.
“Even if this Court did find that the disputed evidence constitutes official acts under the auspices of the Trump decision, which it does not, Defendant’s motion is still denied as introduction of the disputed evidence constitutes harmless error and no mode of proceedings error has taken place.”
In response, Trump’s transition spokesman Steven Cheung criticised the ruling, saying, “This is a direct violation of the Supreme Court’s decision on immunity, and other longstanding jurisprudence.”
The ruling marks a significant setback for Trump, though his lawyers are expected to appeal. Several other motions seeking to dismiss the case remain, including Trump’s claim that his status as president-elect constitutes a “legal impediment” to further proceedings.
Trump was convicted in May for falsifying business records related to payments made to his former lawyer Michael Cohen. The $130,000 payment to adult-film star Stormy Daniels aimed to prevent her from discussing an alleged affair with Trump ahead of the 2016 election—a claim Trump has repeatedly denied.
Sentencing has been delayed twice, pushed back following the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling, and is now expected to occur after the presidential election.
Prosecutors have argued that while Trump’s sentencing may be postponed during his presidency, the conviction itself should stand. They described overturning a jury conviction as an unwarranted “extreme remedy.”
In his ruling, Merchan also addressed testimony challenged by Trump’s lawyers, including statements from White House aides Hope Hicks and Madeleine Westerhout, as well as Cohen.
He explained that communications related to the cover-up were “unofficial” acts, stating, “It is logical and reasonable to conclude that if the act of falsifying records to cover up the payments so that the public would not be made aware is decidedly an unofficial act, so too should the communications to further that same cover-up be unofficial.”
Separately, Merchan disclosed that Trump’s defence team recently raised allegations of juror misconduct. However, the judge noted that no formal motion had been filed and that such claims could not be addressed based on “mere hearsay and conjecture.” Merchan ordered attorneys to publicly release filings regarding the alleged misconduct with appropriate redactions.
“Allegations of juror misconduct should be thoroughly investigated,” Merchan wrote. “However, this Court is prohibited from deciding such claims on the basis of mere hearsay and conjecture. This Court cannot allow the public filing of unsworn, and admittedly contested statements. To do so would threaten the safety of the jurors and violate the agreed upon Order Regulating Disclosure of Juror Information.”
and then