• A NY judge Monday denied Trump's demand that his hush-money case be dismissed on immunity grounds.
• Judge Juan Merchan said the SCOTUS immunity decision found a president is not above the law.
• Any use of official-act evidence in the case would be "harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt," he also wrote.

Donald Trump's 11th-hour bid to toss his hush-money case prior to Inauguration Day — on presidential immunity grounds — was rejected Monday by a Manhattan judge.

The decision now kicks the ball back to Trump. His lawyers have previously promised to quickly appeal, to the US Supreme Court if necessary, in hopes of voiding his sole criminal conviction.

An attorney for Trump did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Merchan's decision.

How the decision will impact Trump's sentencing — which has been delayed three times and currently remains without a scheduled date — remains unclear. Prosecutors have urged that the conviction stand, even if that means Trump is sentenced after his second term.

New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan made no mention of sentencing in Monday's strongly worded, 42-page rebuff, which was centered on presidential immunity.

Presidential immunity does not apply to the hush-money case because the case hinged on "decidedly personal acts," Merchan found, agreeing with arguments by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg.

"The Trump Court was careful to acknowledge that 'The President, charged with enforcing federal criminal laws, is not above them,'" Merchan wrote, quoting from the landmark June SCOTUS decision granting presidents broad immunity from prosecution.

Lawyers for Trump have repeatedly challenged the case on presidential immunity grounds, without success, since his April 2023 indictment on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records.

The indictment alleged that Trump conspired throughout 2017, his first year in office, to alter 34 checks, invoices, and vouchers in order to retroactively hide a $130,000 hush-money payment that silenced porn actress Stormy Daniels less than two weeks before the 2016 election. A jury found him guilty on all counts in May.

"This case involves important federal questions," Trump's lawyers argued just one month after his indictment, because the charges related to conduct "committed while he was President of the United States" and acting within "the color of his office."

Last month, his lawyers argued that his new status as president-elect has strengthened their argument for dismissal. The orderly transition of power is at stake, they said in their most recent dismissal motion. They also argued that presidential immunity, as bestowed by SCOTUS in June, extends to presidents-elect.

But Merchan wrote Monday that even in granting presidents broad immunity from prosecution, SCOTUS set some limits.

He rejected Trump's argument that the hush-money indictment and conviction should be tossed because Manhattan prosecutors, in their presentations to both grand jurors and trial jurors, used the kind of official-act evidence now retroactively barred by SCOTUS.

That evidence included trial testimony by Trump's former White House communications director, Hope Hicks, who described to jurors a conversation she had with Trump in the Oval Office in 2018. Trump had told Hicks that he was relieved that news of the hush-money payment only leaked after the election.

Some of Trump's 2018 tweets about the hush-money scandal were also "official," his lawyers had argued.

But the judge found that no official-act evidence entered the case. And even if it had, he wrote, "such error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt."

Also Monday, Merchan left undecided a series of letters between the defense and prosecutors, not yet made public, that he said address defense claims of "juror misconduct."

Prosecutors want these communications sealed in their entirety, and the defense wants them released to the public in redacted form, Merchant wrote.

The judge said he is continuing to review the defense allegations and a related bid by Trump's lawyers to have the case dismissed in the interest of justice.

• Trump is making an 11th-hour bid to toss his hush-money case before Inauguration Day.
• Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg has now filed an 82-page motion opposing Trump's dismissal efforts.
• Trump's "history of malicious conduct" is too serious to toss the case, Bragg wrote.

In an 82-page court filing made public Tuesday, Manhattan prosecutors say Donald Trump's "history of malicious conduct" is too serious for his hush-money case to be dismissed.

The filing, signed by DA Alvin Bragg, also fights Trump's claim that he enjoys something called presidential-elect immunity — above and beyond the presidential immunity bestowed on him by the US Supreme Court in June.

"There are no grounds for such relief now, prior to inauguration," Bragg wrote in opposing Trump's 11th-hour motion to dismiss, "because President-elect immunity does not exist."

With just six weeks left before his January 20 inauguration — and six months after a Manhattan jury convicted him — Trump is again demanding that New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan immediately dismiss his hush-money case.

It's his third time trying to void his indictment or his conviction. If successful, Trump would escape altogether his already thrice-delayed sentencing.

The president elect faces as little as no jail time and a potential maximum of four years prison for falsifying 34 business records throughout his first year of office to retroactively hide a hush-money payment to adult actress Stormy Daniels. (Legal experts have said that it's unlikely Trump would be sentenced to jail time as a 78-year-old first-time offender convicted of low-level felonies, and any jail sentence would be stayed as he appeals.)

Trump paid for Daniels' silence just eleven days before 2016 election, and jurors unanimously found that he thereby conspired to promote his own election by unlawful means, Bragg wrote.

The evidence presented against Trump was "overwhelming," reads the filing, which is also signed by a lead prosecutor on the case, Christopher Conroy.

"The crimes that the jury convicted defendant of committing are serious offenses that caused extensive harm to the sanctity of the electoral process and to the integrity of New York's financial marketplace," which relies on honest record-keeping, Bragg wrote.

Trump's conduct during his hush-money prosecution also weighs heavily against dismissal, as does his "long history of threatening, abusing, and attacking participants in other legal proceedings in which he is involved," Bragg wrote.

Trump's "contemptuous" conduct began even before his hush-money indictment was voted, the prosecutor wrote.

"He threatened 'death and destruction' if he was indicted and posted a photo of himself wielding a baseball bat at the back of the District Attorney's head," Bragg wrote of Trump's actions while the grand jury was still hearing evidence in early 2023.

Later, Trump launched online attacks on Merchan and members of his family.

Trump was found guilty of criminal contempt ten times for his "extrajudicial speech" — including social media attacks on witnesses — during his trial this spring, Bragg wrote.

Trump also repeatedly attacked the law clerk and was accused of lying under oath by the judge during last year's civil fraud trial, in which he's been ordered to pay a $454 million judgment.

That judgment remains on hold pending appeal.

Trump's history of abusing the legal process extends to his other cases, Bragg wrote, including his continued defamations of writer E. Jean Carroll, who last year won more than $80 million in damages after the president-elect repeatedly mocked her and called her a liar.

Bragg's filling asked Merchan to either sentence Trump before the inauguration, or put the case on hold until after he serves out his second term.

• Trump hopes to make his one criminal conviction disappear prior to his January 20 inauguration.
• In a filing made public Tuesday, he says he's immune from prosecution even now, as president-elect.
• Sentencing in the NY hush-money case has been indefinitely delayed by this latest dismissal bid.

The US Supreme Court found in July that presidents enjoy broad immunity from prosecution.

But is a president-elect also immune?

In a 72-page filing made public Tuesday, lawyers for Donald Trump argue just that — that he's immune from prosecution right now.

And so his hush-money conviction should be immediately dismissed, and his 34 felony convictions wiped clean, they argue.

"Following President Trumps' overwhelming victory in the 2024 Presidential election, Presidential immunity is an unavoidable legal impediment to further proceedings in this case," his lawyers argue.

The massive motion to dismiss mixes old grievances against New York prosecutors and the trial judge — all are portrayed as politically motivated — with citations from caselaw and federal policies spanning from the nineteenth century to just last month.

The filing cites the US Supreme Court's July 1, landmark presidential immunity decision, which extends broad protections from prosecution to sitting presidents. Presidents-elect, during their brief but crucial transition to the office, warrant the same protections, Trump's lawyers argue.

The filing also cites special counsel Jack Smith's decision barely a week ago to drop Trump's two federal indictments. That decision was premised on longstanding Department of Justice policy barring the prosecution of sitting presidents, Trump's lawyers noted.

In moving to scuttle the two federal cases, the DOJ found that this ban on prosecuting sitting presidents also applies to presidents-elect, Trump's lawyers argue.

Trump's lawyers, Todd Blanche and Emil Bove, are asking the trial judge, New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan, to immediately dismiss the hush-money indictment.

Trump was convicted six months ago on 34 counts of falsifying business records. Jurors found he made false entries in Trump Organization records throughout his first year in office in order to retroactively hide a hush-money payment that silenced porn actress Stormy Daniels 11 days before the 2016 election.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg framed the case as a conspiracy to interfere with the election. Trump was convicted after a five-week trial and ten hours of jury deliberations over two days.

Bragg has promised to fight the claim that such a thing as presidential-elect immunity even exists.

"We believe these arguments are incorrect," Bragg wrote in response to a November 19 defense letter. Bragg's letter promises to counter this latest bid to dismiss the case. Prosecutors are due to file a response brief by Monday, December 9.

Only after the judge decides if the case is dismissed can Trump's sentencing — already postponed three times — be calendared or canceled.

And even if Merchan calendars it, Trump's lawyers have promised to halt the sentencing by immediately appealing his decision through the federal court system — to SCOTUS if necessary.

The argument that a president-elect has immunity

So why does Trump believe he enjoys presidential immunity from prosecution even now, as president-elect?

Blanche and Bove argue that there is little material difference between President Trump's current status after his victory in the national election and that of a sitting President following inauguration.

A second argument for special treatment of presidents-elect, made repeatedly by the two lawyers in the past month, draws on the Presidential Transition Act of 1963, which provides for the "orderly transfer of Executive powers."

"The Presidential Transition Act of 1963 was passed 'to promote the orderly transfer of the executive power in connection with the expiration of the term of office of a President and the inauguration of a new President,'" Trump's lawyers write now, quoting from the act.

The Act requires "all officers of the Government" to "take appropriate lawful steps to avoid or minimize distruptions that might be occasioned by the tranfer of the of the executive power," they argue.

The brief also cites the Constitution's Supremacy Clause, which holds federal law as taking precedence over state law.

Here, Blanche and Bove page through two centuries of caselaw, quoting, among other citations, an 1819 court ruling that found States "have no power" to "retard, impede, burden, or in any manner control" the President or other federal authorities."

"President Trump's status as President-elect and the soon-to-be sitting President is a legal impediment to further criminal proceedings based on the Presidential immunity doctrine and the Supremacy Clause," they write.

In the furtherance of justice

Trump's lawyers also argue that the case should be dismissed under New York law, which allows an indictment to be voided "in furtherance of justice."

A so-called interest of justice dismissal would require Merchan to find "some compelling factor, consideration or circumstance" under which continuing a prosecution "would constitute or result in injustice," as the act itself describes.

In considering the interest of justice, Merchan must weigh the strength and seriousness of the offense, the extent of the harm it caused, and the "history, character, and condition of the defendant."

He must also weigh "the impact of a dismissal upon the confidence of the public in the criminal justice system."

Blanche and Bove did not immediately respond to a request for comment on this story. A spokesperson for the Manhattan DA's office also did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

• Donald Trump's sentencing in his New York hush-money case has been officially put off.
• The sentencing in the criminal case was scheduled for Tuesday next week.
• The judge overseeing the case also granted Trump's request to file a motion to dismiss.

President-elect Donald Trump's sentencing in his New York criminal case will not move forward next week, a Manhattan judge ruled Friday.

The sentencing in the former and future president's hush-money case had been on the calendar for Tuesday.

Justice Juan Merchan of the New York Supreme Court granted a stay of the sentencing in his ruling, as well as Trump's request to file a motion to dismiss the case.

Merchan ordered that Trump's motion was due by December 2 and that prosecutors should respond by December 9.

"In a decisive win for President Trump, the hoax Manhattan Case is now fully stayed and sentencing is adjourned," Steven Cheung, Trump's spokesperson and incoming White House communications director, told Business Insider.

"President Trump won a landslide victory as the American People have issued a mandate to return him to office and dispose of all remnants of the Witch Hunt cases," he added. "All of the sham lawfare attacks against President Trump are now destroyed and we are focused on Making America Great Again."

Trump was convicted in May by a Manhattan jury of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to cover up a $130,000 hush-money payment to the adult-film actor Stormy Daniels.

Since Trump's victory in the 2024 presidential election, his sentencing date had remained on hold, with his lawyers arguing for a dismissal.

In a court filing last week, Manhattan's district attorney, Alvin Bragg, accepted a delay to Trump's sentencing but made it clear that his office would fight to keep the case alive.

Bragg wrote in the court filing to the judge that one "non-dismissal option" would be to defer the sentencing "until after the end of Defendant's upcoming presidential term."

"The People believe that the Court should set a motion schedule for Defendant's forthcoming motion to dismiss, which the People intend to oppose," the filing said, adding: "The People deeply respect the Office of the President, are mindful of the demands and obligations of the presidency, and acknowledge that Defendant's inauguration will raise unprecedented legal questions."

• Lawyers for Donald Trump on Wednesday demanded the immediate dismissal of his hush-money case.
• Trump can't be sentenced while either president-elect or president, they argued.
• Manhattan prosecutors, meanwhile, are pushing forward, saying they'll sentence him in 2029 if need be.

Donald Trump's legal team filed Wednesday for the immediate dismissal of his New York hush-money case, arguing that he cannot be sentenced while either president-elect or president.

The orderly transition of power is at stake, his lawyers said.

"Immediate dismissal of this case is mandated by the federal Constitution, the Presidential Transition Act of 1963, and the interest of justice, in order to facilitate the orderly transition of Executive power following President Trump's overwhelming victory in the 2024 Presidential election," the lawyers wrote.

The three-page filing is the latest volley in a battle over when, or whether, Trump will be sentenced for his conviction six months ago of 34 counts of falsifying business records.

"On November 5, 2024, the Nation's People issued a mandate that supersedes the political motivations of DANY's 'People,'" the defense filing said, using an abbreviation for the district attorney of New York.

The filing was signed by the lead defense attorneys for the hush-money case, Todd Blanche, now Trump's pick for deputy attorney general, and Emil Bove, his pick for principal associate deputy attorney general.

It comes one day after Manhattan's district attorney, Alvin Bragg, announced in a letter that he intended to continue opposing any move to dismiss the case, regardless of Trump's election.

"The People deeply respect the Office of the President, are mindful of the demands and obligations of the presidency, and acknowledge that Defendant's inauguration will raise unprecedented legal questions," Bragg wrote.

"We also deeply respect the fundamental role of the jury in our constitutional system," he wrote, adding that even if Trump could not be sentenced before taking office, he could be sentenced afterward.

Wednesday's filing responded forcefully to that show of persistence by Bragg, with the often repeated defense claim that the prosecution is "politically-motivated." Bragg is a Democrat.

The defense filing said one prosecutor should not have "practical power to interfere with the ability of a popularly elected president to carry out his constitutional functions."

"This interest attaches to the ongoing transition activities, which are 'an integral part of the presidential administration,'" the defense filing added, citing a 2000 Department of Justice memo banning the prosecution of sitting presidents.

The cited memo makes no specific mention of whether this protection from prosecution should extend to presidents-elect.

Trump's defense team is asking the judge in the case, Justice Juan Merchan of the New York Supreme Court, to let the defense file a longer brief by December 20, just one month before Inauguration Day.

That date would be nearly two weeks further into the transition than prosecutors hoped. Bragg on Tuesday asked that motions on dismissal be completed by both sides by December 9.

A Manhattan jury found in May that Trump conspired with others throughout his first year in office to hide checks, invoices, and other records for a $130,000 payment that silenced the porn actor Stormy Daniels less than two weeks before the 2016 election.

Among other penalties, he faces as little as no time in jail, and as much as four years in prison, though former New York City judges have said it is highly unlikely that a septuagenarian first-time offender would get any jail time on a nonviolent, low-level felony. Any sentence would almost certainly be placed on hold while he appeals, the former judges also said.

In the half year since his guilty verdict, Trump's sentencing, originally set for July, has repeatedly been postponed as the defense has pursued so-far unsuccessful efforts to get the judge recused, to dismiss the case, and to transfer it to federal court.

The most recent delays were occasioned by the presidential campaign and the US Supreme Court's landmark July decision granting presidents broad immunity from prosecution for official acts.

The judge did not immediately respond Wednesday to Trump's request. Last week, he ordered a freeze on all presentencing calendar deadlines and on the November 26 sentencing date itself so that a battle over dismissal could proceed.