NEW YORK —

A judge announced on Monday that the hush money conviction against President-elect Donald Trump will remain in effect, despite a recent Supreme Court ruling regarding presidential immunity. This ruling adds further complexity to the high-profile case as Trump gears up for his next term in office.

Manhattan Judge Juan M. Merchan’s decision closes off one potential pathway for dismissing the case prior to Trump taking office next month. While Trump’s legal team has put forth various arguments for dismissal, it is still uncertain when a sentencing date might be set.

Prosecutors have shown some flexibility in considering the implications of Trump’s upcoming presidency, yet they strongly assert that the conviction should stay in place.

Back in May, a jury convicted Trump on 34 counts of falsifying business records related to a $130,000 payment made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels during the 2016 campaign. Trump has consistently maintained that he did nothing wrong.

The allegations center around a scheme to hide the payment to Daniels in the waning days of Trump’s 2016 campaign, aiming to prevent her claims of a past sexual encounter with the then-married businessman from coming to light. Trump has repeatedly denied any sexual interaction with her.

Following the jury’s verdict, the Supreme Court ruled that former presidents cannot be prosecuted for actions taken while in office; additionally, those actions cannot be utilized to support a case based on personal, unofficial conduct.

Trump’s legal team invoked this Supreme Court decision to argue that the jury was exposed to inappropriate evidence, including his presidential financial disclosures, testimony from White House aides, and social media posts made during his presidency.

In his ruling on Monday, Judge Merchan largely dismissed Trump’s claims that the evidence presented by prosecutors pertained to official actions, and thus should invoke immunity protections.

Even if some of the evidence was indeed linked to official conduct, the judge concluded that its use in the context of personal acts of falsifying business records did not infringe upon the Executive Branch’s authority.

Furthermore, Merchan indicated that any potential errors in admitting evidence that could be contested under an immunity claim were negligible, given the overwhelming evidence of guilt.

Prosecutors argued that the evidence in question was a minor part of their overall case.

In reaction to the ruling, Trump’s communications director, Steven Cheung, criticized Merchan’s decision as a “blatant violation of the Supreme Court’s ruling on immunity and other established legal precedents.”

Cheung commented, “This unfounded case should never have been brought, and the Constitution demands its immediate dismissal.”

The Manhattan District Attorney’s office, which is handling the prosecution, chose not to comment on the latest ruling.

Judge Merchan highlighted that the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling clarified that not all actions taken by a president qualify as official. He specifically noted that Trump’s social media posts were considered personal.

Additionally, he referred to a previous federal ruling, which indicated that the hush money payment and subsequent reimbursements were tied to Trump’s private matters rather than his official duties.

Trump, a Republican, is scheduled to take office on January 20, making him the first former president ever to be convicted of a felony and the first convicted criminal to reclaim the presidency.

In recent months, Trump’s legal team has made numerous attempts to have both the conviction and the case dismissed. After Trump’s election victory last month, Judge Merchan indefinitely postponed the sentencing—initially set for late November—to allow both sides to propose further actions.

Trump’s defense argued that anything short of an immediate dismissal would disrupt the power transfer and create unconstitutional complications for the presidency.

Meanwhile, prosecutors have suggested several options to preserve the historic conviction, including pausing the case until Trump leaves office in 2029, agreeing that any future sentence would not involve imprisonment, or officially closing the case while acknowledging the conviction but indicating that sentencing and appeals remain unresolved due to his new term.

This final suggestion resembles practices in some states where a defendant passes away after conviction but before sentencing.

Trump’s attorneys dismissed this proposal as “ridiculous” and expressed their objections to other alternatives suggested by prosecutors.

Throughout the past year, Trump faced a total of four indictments, with the hush money case being the only one that proceeded to trial.

After the election, special counsel Jack Smith wrapped up his two federal cases related to Trump’s alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election results and accusations of mishandling classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate.

A separate state case concerning election interference in Fulton County, Georgia, is largely on hold for the time being.

Trump has consistently denied any wrongdoing across all cases.