Will Trump face another hush money trial after leaving office?
Will there be another hush money trial against Donald Trump after he leaves office?
The possibility is raised by the president's pending appeal, which was the subject of a hearing Wednesday. But the issue at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit wasn't whether Trump's state conviction will be overturned, but where his attempt to overturn it will proceed: in state court or federal court, with the president pushing for the federal route.
The hearing left it unclear what the three-judge panel will decide. But regardless of where the appeal moves forward, the Supreme Court can have the last word. And that last word could be that Trump deserves a new trial, based on its immunity ruling last summer.
Before the immunity ruling came down last year, a Manhattan jury found Trump guilty of falsifying business records, for covering up a 2016 election conspiracy involving hush money paid to adult film star Stormy Daniels. Trump's former fixer Michael Cohen paid her to stay quiet during the 2016 presidential campaign about her claim that she had sex with Trump, which he denied. He won the election.
The Supreme Court declined to halt Trump's sentencing before he retook the White House after winning the 2024 election. Splitting 5-4, the justices said Trump's argument that evidence introduced at the trial violated the immunity ruling can be addressed in his appeal. The majority also cited the fact that he was going to receive an 'unconditional discharge,' a penalty-free sentence as a courtesy to the then-incoming president, which he received before taking office again.
Now back in office, Trump is pressing to undo the historic conviction. He's represented by new private lawyers because he named his lawyers who lost the hush money trial, Todd Blanche and Emil Bove, to top posts in the Justice Department (which is backing Trump's removal bid).
At Wednesday's hearing, his lawyer Jeff Wall, who was a top DOJ lawyer during Trump's first term and is now in private practice, sought to persuade the panel that the case should move to federal court, while a prosecutor from Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg's office said it should stay in state court. More specifically, Trump's lawyers have argued that he's 'entitled to a federal forum to seek relief based on federal constitutional defenses rooted in structural protections for the institution of the Presidency and the Supremacy Clause,' referring to the constitutional provision placing federal law over state law. Bragg has argued, among other things, that the removal issue is moot now that Trump has been sentenced and that the case should stay the normal course through the state appellate process.
But whether or not Trump wins or loses his removal bid — we don't know when the panel will decide — the justices can take appeals from state or federal courts. If the appeal reaches the justices again, we know from Trump's failure to halt his sentencing that the four dissenting justices (all Republican appointees) were ready to provide him that extraordinary relief. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett were in the majority rejecting Trump's motion in January, but at least Roberts, who authored the immunity ruling that Barrett didn't fully join, could form a majority to side with Trump on the merits of his appeal.
Whatever the circuit panel decides on removal, it could be a while before the Supreme Court ultimately decides whether Trump's state conviction stands. But whenever that happens, the justices could say that a new trial is warranted; that, in turn, would raise the question of whether the president would have another hush money trial waiting for him when he leaves office.
Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration's legal cases.
This article was originally published on MSNBC.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
32 minutes ago
- New York Times
Live Updates: Federal Agents Force Senator to Floor and Handcuff Him After He Interrupts Noem
'I'm worried about this country,' Gov. Gavin Newsom of California said on 'The Daily' for its latest episode. Gov. Gavin Newsom of California appeared on Thursday's episode of the New York Times podcast 'The Daily,' as he engaged in a tense standoff with President Trump over the military's involvement in anti-deportation protests in Los Angeles. Mr. Trump deployed nearly 5,000 National Guard troops and Marines to the city to clamp down on the protests, against Mr. Newsom's wishes, and the state of California responded by suing his administration, accusing it of an 'unprecedented power grab.' Here are six takeaways from Mr. Newsom's conversation with Michael Barbaro, the host of 'The Daily': Newsom accused Trump of inflaming the situation by mobilizing the military. Mr. Newsom argued that law enforcement officers in Los Angeles had routine experience dealing with protests, including at events as innocuous as World Series baseball games, and said that local officers had the situation under control. 'We deal with civil unrest. That's what law enforcement does,' Mr. Newsom said. 'The military's simply not needed. But what he's doing is trying to gin things up to create problems.' A small number of demonstrators have looted, vandalized and set cars on fire, and Mr. Newsom condemned those actions. But he suggested that the response from Mr. Trump was disproportionate. The arrival of the National Guard inflamed tensions, Mr. Newsom said, with protesters flocking in response. 'We had to defend the National Guard. We had to use our own law enforcement to protect them,' he said. 'Just think about how perverse that is.' He questioned the president's mental acuity. Some of the sparring between Mr. Trump and Mr. Newsom this week has centered on their communication — or lack thereof — about the National Guard deployment. They spoke early Saturday morning, a conversation in which Mr. Trump has said he brought up the National Guard. (Mr. Newsom said that was false, calling the president a 'stone-cold liar.') But Mr. Trump then told reporters he called Mr. Newsom a second time, on Monday, to admonish him. Mr. Newsom says a Monday call never happened. The president 'starts making up all these things he claimed he told me about, which honestly starts to disturb me on a different level,' Mr. Newsom said. 'Maybe he actually believed he said those things, and he's not all there. I mean that.' Mr. Newsom added: 'He claimed he had another conversation with me. So there's something going on here.' Mr. Trump, days from his 79th birthday, has not faced the same degree of criticism over his age and cognitive ability as his predecessor, former President Joseph R. Biden Jr., but some of Mr. Trump's rambling speeches have drawn scrutiny. Newsom grew emotional as he talked about his daughter. Responding to comments from the federal border czar, Tom Homan, Mr. Trump said on Monday that he thought the idea of arresting Mr. Newsom over his handling of the protests was 'great.' Mr. Newsom has said Mr. Homan should 'come after me. Arrest me.' But on 'The Daily,' Mr. Newsom revealed that the threat had hit home. 'I have a 15-year-old who quite literally came home from school crying because she was told on her last day of school — God as my witness — because she was told her daddy was getting arrested,' Mr. Newsom said. 'And I said, 'That doesn't matter. That doesn't matter. What matters is what's happening with the military out on the streets. I can handle that, I'll be fine,'' Mr. Newsom said, his voice rasping with emotion. ''But I'm worried about you, I'm worried about this country.'' Mr. Barbaro chimed in: 'I'm sensing some emotion in your voice here.' 'Yeah,' Mr. Newsom replied, momentarily seeming at a loss for words. He said Mr. Trump had 'authoritarian tendencies,' but did not back down from overtures to conservatives. Mr. Newsom has always been willing to joust with Mr. Trump, but lately has seemed more apt to cast the president as an existential threat, and has called the deployment of the military in a domestic setting a crossing of a 'red line.' Referring to a televised speech on Tuesday in which he said 'democracy is under assault,' Mr. Newsom told 'The Daily' that people needed to 'wake up' and resist. 'I just pray that people don't give in — and this was the final words I said — to cynicism, to their own fear and anxiety,' he said. 'They're the antidote to that, as long as they don't give up.' Still, Mr. Newsom, seen as a likely 2028 Democratic presidential hopeful, struck a conciliatory tone toward conservatives after November's election loss and, on his podcast, hosted right-wing figures like Stephen K. Bannon and Charlie Kirk. And Mr. Newsom maintained that Democrats could learn from them how to win back working-class voters. 'At a certain point, divorce is not an option,' he said. 'I'm learning from these guys — I learn a lot. I listen to Steve Bannon' about economic populism, the governor said. He deplored ICE's tactics but highlighted his work with the agency, reflecting an immigration dilemma. Mr. Newsom endorsed comprehensive immigration reform, and highlighted the fear some families are feeling from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials. 'You had a nine-month pregnant woman arrested,' Mr. Newsom said. 'A 4-year-old that's gone. People are disappearing. People are disappearing. Disappearing.' But Mr. Newsom also said that California Democrats had criticized him for working with ICE, 'which I've done over 10,500 times since I've been governor.' And he distanced himself from the policy of sanctuary cities like Los Angeles, which refuse to coordinate with federal immigration officials. Mr. Newsom pointed out that as mayor of San Francisco, in 2008, he enacted a policy that referred undocumented minors charged with felonies to federal immigration officials. The contrast reflected the dilemma Democrats face on immigration, an issue where voters have increasingly aligned with Republicans in demanding stricter border control measures. Newsom dialed back a threat to withhold federal tax dollars. Even before the conflict over military deployment, Mr. Trump threatened to cut federal funding to California, citing a transgender girl's success in high school track. Mr. Newsom responded by suggesting that California could withhold the taxes its residents pay the federal government. But how the state would do so is not clear, and Mr. Newsom said on 'The Daily' that he would not encourage residents to simply not file federal tax returns. 'That puts those taxpayers at risk — I would never do that,' he said. But how creative, Mr. Barbaro asked, was Mr. Newsom willing to get to carry out this threat? 'Well, I'm trying to be creative, and we're looking,' Mr. Newsom said. 'I have a team of people looking creatively.' Watch their full conversation below, or listen to it here.
Chicago Tribune
36 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Secretary of state's office says law enforcement using license plate reader data illegally
The Illinois secretary of state's office said Thursday it will conduct an audit of the state's automated license plate reader system after it was allegedly used illegally by law enforcement in Texas to track down a woman for an abortion care-related matter. A state law last year restricted the sale, sharing and access of its license plate reader data by law enforcement when it interferes with someone's abortion rights, particularly if the person comes to Illinois from out of state. While license plate readers can be used by law enforcement to investigate violent felonies and missing person cases, the state law also prohibits use of the data for matters including to aid in the detention or investigation of a person based on their immigration status. According to the secretary of state's office, Texas law enforcement authorities in May performed a nationwide search of more than 83,000 license plate reader cameras — which can be found on squad cars, street lights and along highways — to find a woman they said had a self-administered abortion. Almost all abortions are illegal in Texas while Illinois has numerous protections for women seeking to undergo the procedure. The Texas authorities managed 'to find a way to circumvent the law and collect Illinois license plate data illegally,' Secretary of State Alexi Giannoulias said during a news conference Thursday. 'This demonstrates a broader, problematic trend of other states leveraging this emerging technology, extending their reach beyond their jurisdictions to surveil and hunt down law-abiding individuals,' Giannoulias said. While abortion is clearly a partisan issue, Giannoulias denied politics were at play in his decision to call for an audit. 'This is about protecting personal data,' the Chicago Democrat said. 'This is not about Democrat versus Republican. This is about protecting this information, and it's about abiding by Illinois law.' The search from Texas authorities included cameras in Mount Prospect, the secretary of state's office said. The northwest suburb's Police Department's license plate reader settings 'provided a gateway into Illinois' system operated by (Flock Safety, the service that operates the license plate reader network in question) for an unauthorized use, despite the Texas police stating that the reason for the search was related to abortion care.' In addition, between Jan. 14 and April 30, there were 262 searches for immigration-related matters in Mount Prospect alone, the secretary of state's office said. Neither officials from the Mount Prospect Police Department nor the Johnson County, Texas, sheriff's office, which investigated the case involving the woman, were immediately available for comment Thursday. The secretary of state's office said it instructed Flock Safety to immediately shut off access for out-of-state authorities to use the system illegally. As of Wednesday, Giannoulias said, the service had 'identified 46 individual out-of-state agencies' who violated the law, and their access has been shut off. Giannoulias' office said in a statement it has also contacted the Illinois attorney general's office to investigate the matter 'and is establishing an audit system with additional safeguards to ensure any law enforcement entity using (a license plate reader system) in Illinois is adhering to the law.' According to Sarah Garza Resnick, CEO of Personal PAC, an abortion rights group, law enforcement charged at least 210 pregnant people for 'conduct related to pregnancy, pregnancy loss or birth' in the first year after the U.S. Supreme Court in 2022 overturned the constitutional right to an abortion, leaving regulations of the procedure up to individual states. On Thursday, Resnick said 114 of these cases 'involved family-policing,' such as the woman in the Texas case. There's no indication the woman ended up seeking abortion care in Illinois. 'If this woman didn't want her family involved in her health care decision, she has every right to (keep) her privacy,' Resnick said. 'And despite what anti-abortion politicians want, she has every right to travel freely and across our country.' Under the law, police agencies could jeopardize their access to Illinois license plate reader data if they use it to prosecute or enforce another state's laws pertaining to abortion care or for inquires about someone's immigration status. Violating the law could also jeopardize the agencies' well as their eligibility for federal and state grants.
The Intercept
36 minutes ago
- The Intercept
Josh Hawley Blames Nonprofits for 'Bankrolling Civil Unrest' in LA Without Evidence
As protests against immigration crackdowns spread from Los Angeles to cities around the United States this week, Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., leveraged the perceived unrest to target nonprofits supporting the very communities the Trump administration has put under siege. President Donald Trump deployed the National Guard and the Marines, while the Los Angeles Police Department carried out a brutal response to protests objecting to workers' arbitrary detention by masked ICE agents in Los Angeles. After fueling the chaos in support of Trump's deportation regime, Republicans used the moment to target nonprofit leaders and discredit protesters as 'bought and paid-for flash mobs.' In a letter to multiple nonprofit organizations serving immigrant and Latino communities — including the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, also known as CHIRLA, and Unión del Barrio — Hawley accused the organizations of 'aiding and abetting criminal conduct' by 'bankrolling civil unrest.' 'Credible reporting now suggests that your organization has provided logistical support and financial resources to individuals engaged in these disruptive actions,' wrote Hawley, who chairs the Senate Subcommittee on Crime and Counterterrorism, in one version of the letter. 'Let me be clear: bankrolling civil unrest is not protected speech. It is aiding and abetting criminal conduct. Accordingly, you must immediately cease and desist any further involvement in your organization funding, or promotion of these unlawful activities.' The letter demands that the organizations preserve a large number of records from November 5, 2024, onward, including 'donor lists,' 'media or public relations strategies,' and all internal communications and financial documents related to protests. Hawley did not elaborate on any sources for his claims, and he did not immediately respond to The Intercept's request for comment. But in an interview on Fox News, he doubled down on his accusations. 'These aren't spontaneous at all. They're about as authentic as astroturf. They are bought and paid-for flash mobs, and I want to know who's doing the buying and the paying. That's why today I've launched an investigation,' Hawley said on Wednesday. CHIRLA denied fueling violence, saying the group won't be intimidated by the Missouri senator. 'Our mission is rooted in non-violent advocacy, community safety, and democratic values,' wrote CHIRLA executive director Angelica Salas in a statement reported by LAist. 'We will not be intimidated for standing with immigrant communities and documenting the inhumane manner that our community is being targeted with the assault by the raids, the unconstitutional and illegal arrests, detentions, and the assault on our first amendment rights.' The inquiry marks the latest chapter of the GOP's war on progressive-aligned nonprofits. Other Republicans have attempted to target CHIRLA and other nonprofits focused on immigrant rights. On Thursday, House Homeland Security Committee Chair Mark Green, R-Tenn., and Subcommittee Chair Josh Brecheen, R-Okla., launched an investigation into more than 200 nonprofit organizations, including CHIRLA, alleging that they 'helped fuel the worst border crisis in our nation's history.' The congressmen also accused the organizations of 'actively advising and training illegal aliens on strategies to avoid cooperation with immigration officials.' In addition to CHIRLA, the House subcommittee called out Catholic Charities USA and Southwest Key Programs for their resettlement efforts. The letter demands that organizations provide a full accounting of federal grants, contracts, and payments received during the Biden administration, as well as information on whether they've sued the federal government and the services they provide to immigrants.
