In a recent court filing, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office has argued that the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling on presidential immunity does not impact former President Donald Trump’s criminal case. The July 24 brief asserts that the Supreme Court’s decision on presidential immunity, which pertains to core constitutional and official acts, does not affect the validity of Trump’s case, nor does it warrant the dismissal of the indictment or the jury’s unanimous verdict.
The Supreme Court had ruled on July 1 that presidents have absolute immunity for core constitutional acts, presumptive immunity for official acts, but no immunity for unofficial acts. Chief Justice John Roberts, in the majority opinion, specified that communications between a president and aides cannot be examined to determine if an act was official.
Following this ruling, Trump’s attorneys requested that New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan dismiss the indictment and verdict in Trump’s Manhattan case, arguing that communications between Trump and his aides had influenced the grand jury and the jury’s verdict. The district attorney’s office responded, stating that all charges in this case are related to Trump’s unofficial acts, which are not covered by presidential immunity.
Prosecutors also argued that the evidence in question is a small part of the overall evidence presented to the jury, which included significant testimony and documents. They maintained that this limited evidence would not justify the dismissal of the case.
During the trial, the prosecution used testimonies from White House Communications Director Hope Hicks and Oval Office Director of Operations Madeleine Westerhout to show that Trump had signed checks at the White House. The defense raised objections to this evidence, but not on grounds of presidential immunity. The defense also objected to social media posts made by Trump during his presidency, but again, did not cite presidential immunity as a reason.
Prosecutors contended that the defense had failed to preserve a record of objections based on immunity, which prevents the court from considering these claims now. Before the trial, Trump’s legal team did file a motion arguing for presidential immunity, but Justice Merchan dismissed it, stating that individual objections could be raised during the trial and criticizing the motion’s timing and intent.
