SCOTUS Declines to Intervene in Trump Hush Money Trial

WASHINGTON—The conservative-leaning U.S. Supreme Court today struck down a lawsuit filed by the state of Missouri against the state of New York seeking to block New York Supreme Court Judge Juan Merchan from sentencing former President Donald Trump in his hush money trial.  Trump was found guilty on May 31 by a jury of his peers in the so-called hush money trial brought against him by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. Jurors found the former president guilty of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to cover up a conspiracy to silence AVN Hall of Famer Stormy Daniels from speaking out about an affair she had with Trump at a 2006 golf tournament at Lake Tahoe in Nevada.  Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey, a far-right Republican, sued New York before the U.S. Supreme Court, asking for sentencing in the hush money trial to be delayed until after the election and for Trump's gag order to be lifted so that he can campaign. AVN has reported extensively on many of the developments in the Trump trial due to the intersection with the adult entertainment industry. Bailey was suing on behalf of a state to intervene in another state's sovereign criminal justice system, and the U.S. Supreme Court is tasked with deciding whether there is standing and justification for the lawsuit. Since the high court found no such standing and justification, the lawsuit was dismissed. Many observers, including this journalist in a local news outlet, noted Bailey's lawsuit was essentially a long shot and was simply a gesture of political theatre. According to the Supreme Court docket, other attorneys general filed an amicus brief in support of the high court taking up the case. This came from the likes of far-right Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody, arguing that New York acted illegally with Trump. Also, note that Bailey filed an amicus brief with Judge Merchan's court urging the sentencing and gag order to be delayed and amended and for the case to ultimately be dismissed. Regardless of the flimsiness of DA Bragg's case against Trump, the verdict will have to be heard before the appeals court in New York. The actions of Attorneys General Bailey and Moody will have no bearing on what an appeals court would rule in any appeal related to the conviction. Keep in mind, also, that the U.S. Supreme Court expanded presidential immunity in a recent court decision. However, there is consensus that much of Trump's actions in the efforts to silence Stormy Daniels through a hush money payment was done in an unofficial capacity as president, which means that immunity doesn't apply. Bragg argues that the immunity ruling from the high court has no implication on the status of Trump's case in Manhattan. Trump's attorneys say otherwise, noting that Bragg's prosecutors called on people who worked for the former president at the White House and that they used social posts from Trump's official accounts on X and Facebook.