Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg Challenges Supreme Court’s Immunity Stance, Continues Prosecution in Trump’s Hush Money Case

New York — In a significant legal development, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has made a bold move in the criminal case against former President Donald Trump involving hush money payments. This follows a recent Supreme Court decision that broadly outlined presidential immunity, particularly distinguishing between official acts of the presidency and private conduct.

Nearly a month after the high court’s decision, which was decided by a 6-3 margin, legal analysts have been scrutinizing the nuances of the ruling. The Supreme Court clarified that while presidents hold immunity for their official acts, this shield does not extend to actions outside the official capacity — leaving open a gateway for legal accountability on private matters.

Amid these unfolding legal scenarios, Glenn Kirschner, a former assistant U.S. attorney and current legal analyst, pointed out that the Supreme Court’s decision introduces a potential for accountability on matters that are non-official. He highlighted this in a recent video, suggesting that President Trump’s private actions, if illegal, could still be susceptible to legal challenges.

In response to the Supreme Court’s ruling, Trump’s legal team has argued that his actions were within the scope of presidential duties, urging the presiding Judge Juan Merchan to dismiss the case entirely. However, this argument was recently challenged by Bragg’s office through a comprehensive 69-page motion.

The district attorney’s motion argues forcefully against the dismissal of the case, asserting that the former president’s actions, most of which occurred before his presidency, were personal and therefore not subject to presidential immunity. This argument takes aim at the very heart of Trump’s defense, suggesting that the scope of immunity he claims does not apply.

The case in question stems from allegations related to payments made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels, who claimed she had a sexual encounter with Trump in 2006, which he denies. These payments, made during the heat of the 2016 presidential campaign, were intended to silence Daniels, prosecutors argued during the trial.

In May, the controversy surrounding these allegations culminated in a conviction. A New York jury found Trump guilty on 34 counts of falsifying business records related to the payments. This historical verdict marked the first time a former U.S. president was convicted of felony charges. The conviction has set the stage for a potential sentence, which Judge Merchan is expected to pronounce this fall, keeping in mind the implications of the Supreme Court’s recent decisions.

Trump has consistently maintained his innocence, describing the charges and subsequent trial as politically motivated. His legal team has been actively fighting the conviction, including leveraging the new Supreme Court ruling to bolster their arguments for dismissal.

Bragg, in his recent filing, contested Trump’s arguments, particularly criticizing the former president’s failure to preserve an immunity claim concerning the evidence at hand. According to Bragg, the actions in question were “wholly unofficial” or at least not covered by any viable immunity claim.

As the legal battles unfold, the district attorney’s aggressive stance highlights a crucial interpretation of the Supreme Court’s ruling — that not all actions taken by a sitting president are beyond the reach of judicial scrutiny, particularly when those actions stray into personal territory. This case not only tests the limits of presidential immunity but also sets a significant precedent for how private conduct by a president could be treated legally. The outcome could redefine the bounds of power for the highest office in the United States.