A New York judge rejected Donald J. Trump’s latest legal maneuver on Monday to overturn his conviction in the hush-money case, rebuffing his argument that a recent Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity rendered the verdict invalid.

The decision by Justice Juan M. Merchan preserves Trump’s 34 felony convictions for falsifying business records related to a $130,000 payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels during his 2016 presidential campaign. Trump, the first U.S. president to face criminal conviction, is likely to appeal the ruling as he prepares to return to the White House.

The Immunity Argument

Trump’s lawyers invoked the Supreme Court’s recent decision on presidential immunity, which established broad protections for official acts during and after a president’s term. They argued that testimony given during the trial by former White House aides Hope Hicks and Madeleine Westerhout had tainted the case, as it allegedly stemmed from official presidential duties.

Justice Merchan, in his 41-page ruling, rejected this argument, affirming that Trump’s misconduct was personal and unrelated to official acts. “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,” Merchan wrote.

He added that even if there were errors in admitting evidence tied to Trump’s time in office, the case presented “overwhelming evidence of guilt,” rendering any missteps harmless.

The Conviction and Evidence

In May, a Manhattan jury found Trump guilty on all counts of falsifying business records. The case centered on Trump’s repayment to his former lawyer Michael Cohen, who brokered the hush-money deal to silence Daniels’ story about an alleged sexual encounter with Trump. Prosecutors argued that Trump’s reimbursements were deliberately misclassified to conceal the true nature of the payments and protect his 2016 campaign.

Key testimony included Cohen’s detailed account of the scheme and Hicks’ recollection of discussions with Trump after news of the payment surfaced. Trump’s lawyers insisted that Hicks’ testimony about post-election conversations violated the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling, which restricts the use of evidence related to a president’s official actions.

Merchan dismissed the argument, stating Trump’s statements were not “official acts” protected by immunity but instead linked to personal misconduct. “Hush money paid to an adult film star is not related to a president’s official acts,” Merchan wrote, echoing a federal court’s earlier findings.

Trump’s Response and Appeal Plans

Trump’s spokesperson, Steven Cheung, decried the ruling, calling it a “direct violation of the Supreme Court’s decision on immunity.” He reiterated Trump’s longstanding assertion that the case was politically motivated.

Trump is expected to appeal the decision to higher courts, including the New York Court of Appeals and potentially the U.S. Supreme Court, where the conservative-leaning bench—bolstered by Trump’s three appointees—could revisit the case.

Legal and Political Implications

While the ruling keeps Trump’s conviction intact, it does not yet determine his punishment. Trump faces up to four years in prison, though legal experts anticipate he would receive a significantly lighter sentence if any at all.

Justice Merchan has already delayed sentencing multiple times and could further postpone it, particularly given Trump’s pending presidential inauguration. Alternatively, the judge may impose a sentence without jail time to sidestep constitutional and political complexities.

Meanwhile, Trump’s lawyers are pursuing additional arguments to nullify the case. They cite a 1963 law prioritizing a smooth transition of presidential power and a longstanding Justice Department policy prohibiting the prosecution of sitting presidents. Though the Manhattan case stems from state, not federal charges, Trump’s team argues it would interfere with his ability to govern.

Prosecutors have countered that dismissing the conviction would undermine accountability, suggesting instead that sentencing be deferred until Trump’s term concludes.

Broader Impact of Supreme Court Ruling

The Supreme Court’s landmark decision on presidential immunity, which shields presidents from prosecution for official acts, continues to reverberate in Trump’s legal battles. The decision emerged from a separate federal case in which Trump is accused of attempting to overturn the 2020 election results.

Although Trump’s lawyers sought to apply the ruling broadly, Justice Merchan’s decision provides an early interpretation of its limits. By distinguishing Trump’s personal conduct from official acts, the ruling could set a precedent for other courts weighing the application of immunity protections in cases involving former presidents.

Next Steps

As Trump prepares to appeal, the case remains a centerpiece in the complex intersection of his political comeback and legal jeopardy. Trump’s critics view the ruling as a victory for accountability, while his allies see it as part of a broader legal and political struggle.

If the conviction stands, Trump would become the first felon to serve as president, a historic development that could reshape public perceptions of presidential immunity and justice.