The Supreme Court on Monday turned down a plea from Missouri to block New York from imposing a gag order and sentencing former President Donald Trump in his criminal proceedings there until after the 2024 elections.
After a six-week trial, Trump was convicted in May in a New York state court on 34 counts of falsifying business records. Prosecutors contended that Trump sought to hide a $130,000 payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels during the 2016 election, made in exchange for her silence about an alleged sexual encounter with Trump in 2006. (Trump has denied any sexual relationship with Daniels.)
Trump’s sentencing was originally scheduled for July 11, but it has been postponed at least until September in the wake of the Supreme Court’s July 1 decision holding that former presidents have broad immunity from prosecution for their official acts.
In a brief unsigned order without any explanation, the justices rejected a long-shot bid by Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey to file a lawsuit against New York directly in the Supreme Court. Bailey told the justices that he wanted to ensure that voters in Missouri and elsewhere could hear from Trump and that Trump could “freely travel and campaign” without the gag order.
Bailey criticized Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg for having brought “transparently weak charges for the transparent purpose of trying to impose political damage against Trump and trying to restrain his ability to campaign in advance of an election forecasted by the polls to be very close.”
New York Attorney General Letitia James countered that Missouri has not outlined the kind of tangible harm to its state interests that it needs to bring this lawsuit. Instead, James contended, “Missouri is clearly and impermissibly seeking to further the individual interests of former President Trump.”
Missouri has also not shown, James continued, that New York is causing it any harm. Missouri’s complaint seeks to block orders obtained by Bragg, the Manhattan DA, in a state trial court. “Allowing Missouri to file this suit for such relief against New York would permit an extraordinary and dangerous end-run around former President Trump’s ongoing state court proceedings and the statutory limitations on this Court’s jurisdiction to review state court decisions.”
Moreover, James added, after the May verdict against Trump, Judge Juan Merchan lifted most of the order limiting Trump’s out-of-court statements, including the bar on attacking witnesses and jurors.
Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito indicated that they would have allowed Missouri to file its complaint against New York.
This article was originally published at Howe on the Court.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY