Will the Supreme Court Immunity Decision Change Trump’s Felony Conviction?

Donald Trump has been convicted of 34 felony counts in the New York hush money case—but there’s a lengthy appeals process ahead. And what ever happened to the other three cases against him—Jack Smith’s federal election interference and classified documents cases, and Fani Willis’ Georgia election interference case? All three have hit various roadblocks. To make it easier to follow all of Trump’s ongoing legal entanglements, each Monday, we’ll keep you updated on the latest developments in Keeping Up With the Trump Trials. 

Ever since the Supreme Court ruled earlier this month that presidents are immune from prosecution for “official acts,” Trump’s legal team has been trying to get his felony conviction in the New York hush money trial thrown out. Now Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has filed new legal documents arguing that the Supreme Court’s immunity decision should not impact Trump’s conviction. Meanwhile, Trump’s attorneys filed a new appeal of the New York civil fraud judgment that found the former president liable for $355 million earlier this year.

In light of the Supreme Court ruling that presidents are protected from criminal prosecution for “official” acts taken while in the White House, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg filed a new memo arguing that the SCOTUS decision “has no bearing on this prosecution and would not support vacatur of the jury’s unanimous verdict.”

In a 69-page memo, Bragg lays out why he believes none of the charges or evidence detailed in his indictment or during Trump’s trial are subject to the Supreme Court’s immunity decision, which said Trump cannot be prosecuted over official acts that are “core” presidential powers, and testimony or private records of the president or his advisers also cannot be used by prosecutors as evidence. Bragg argues Trump’s actions at the center of the hush money case are “wholly unofficial” because they are “purely personal conduct.”

Bragg goes on to defend evidence used at trial, including four of Trump’s tweets from his X account where he commented on his former attorney Michael Cohen and adult film star Stormy Daniels. Pointing to the SCOTUS decision, Bragg argues the justices specifically carved out an exception that presidents “could make public statements—including Tweets—‘in an unofficial capacity,’ such as if he spoke ‘as a candidate for office or party leader.’ ”

Prosecutors also brought in Hope Hicks, Trump’s former communications director, to testify in front of the jury about her conversations with Trump shortly after the infamous Access Hollywood tape was leaked. The former president’s attorneys objected to this, claiming Trump and Hicks’ conversations are “official” acts that prosecutors cannot use, but Bragg contends that Hicks “is neither mentioned in the Constitution nor formally appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate,” and therefore their conversations are admissible. Plus, Bragg notes, Hicks’ testimony only included conversations she had with Trump about how to respond to the Access Hollywood tape and how Cohen was handling the hush money payment to Daniels, which “had no relationship whatsoever to any official duty of the presidency.”

In a failed bid to move Trump’s trial from state court to federal court last year, a district court judge also concluded the hush money case contained evidence that “overwhelmingly suggests that the matter was purely a personal item of the President—a cover-up of an embarrassing event.”

Todd Blanche, Trump’s lead defense attorney in this case, submitted a letter to New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan asking for permission to respond to Bragg’s memo. Merchan is expected to rule on the immunity question by Sept. 6—ultimately deciding if Trump remains a convicted felon. If the conviction stands, Trump’s sentencing is currently scheduled for Sept. 18.

It has been five months since a New York judge fined Trump $355 million (plus interest) for lying about the value of his company’s assets, and the former president’s lawyers are still working to get the judgment reversed or drastically reduced.

Trump’s lawyers filed an appeal last week with the New York State Appellate Division of the Supreme Court where they argued New York Attorney General Letitia James’ civil fraud lawsuit was an “unauthorized, unprecedented power-grab.” They also argue that James’ lawsuit focused on actions that occurred years ago, thus violating the statute of limitations. (An appeals court ruled last year that the AG could still charge for acts committed after July 13, 2014; the judge determined that Trump and his sons did submit false financial documents more recently than the cut-off date, and thus were liable for civil fraud.) They also claim that New York Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron, who oversaw the trial, “willingly allowed a reckless, politically motivated Attorney General to meddle in lawful, private, and mutually profitable transactions.”

In a statement, the AG’s office expressed its confidence in Engoron’s ruling. “We won this case based on the facts and the law, and we are confident we will prevail on appeal.”

Back in February, after an eight-week-long trial, Engoron ruled Trump had committed business fraud when he overinflated the values of some of his property in financial documents. The trial featured testimony from Cohen, Trump’s former personal attorney, along with three of Trump’s adult children—Don Jr., Eric, and Ivanka. Because it was a bench trial, Engoron decided the verdict and concluded the Trump family’s “complete lack of contrition and remorse borders on pathological.” He issued a $355 million judgment, and with interest it added up to $454 million at the time—there’s a 9 percent annual interest rate, which means the total judgment grows by $11,984 per day, according to an analysis by Forbes.

In order to prevent the AG from seizing his assets, Trump was required to post bond for the full  $454 million judgment. However, after failing to find an underwriter to secure his massive bond amount, an appeals court allowed Trump to post only $175 million.

James is expected to file her response to Trump’s appeal next month, and the appellate court will hear oral arguments in the fall, right around the time voters head to the polls for the general election.