NEW YORK —

On Monday, a judge confirmed that the hush money conviction against President-elect Donald Trump will remain in effect, despite a recent Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity. This ruling adds another layer of complexity to the significant case as Trump prepares for his upcoming term.

Judge Juan M. Merchan of Manhattan has effectively removed one potential route for dismissing the case ahead of Trump’s return to office next month. While Trump’s legal team has presented multiple arguments for dismissal, it is still uncertain when a sentencing date might be set.

Although prosecutors have shown some willingness to take into account Trump’s impending presidency, they are adamant that the conviction should not be overturned.

In May, a jury found Trump guilty on 34 counts related to falsifying business records linked to a $130,000 payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels during the 2016 election cycle. Trump has maintained his innocence throughout the proceedings.

The case centers around allegations that Trump sought to hide the payment to Daniels in the final stretch of his 2016 campaign to prevent her claims of a past sexual encounter with the then-married business mogul from becoming public. Trump has repeatedly stated that there was no sexual relationship between them.

Following the jury’s decision, the Supreme Court ruled that former presidents cannot be prosecuted for actions taken while in office, nor can prosecutors use those actions to bolster a case focused on personal misconduct.

In light of this Supreme Court ruling, Trump’s legal team argued that the jury was exposed to inappropriate evidence, including his financial disclosures as president, testimonies from White House staff, and social media posts made during his time in office.

In his ruling, Judge Merchan dismissed most of Trump’s claims that the evidence presented by prosecutors was related to official actions and therefore subject to immunity protections.

Even if some of the evidence pertained to official conduct, the judge concluded that its use in the context of personal business record falsification did not violate the Executive Branch’s authority.

Moreover, Judge Merchan noted that any potential mistakes in admitting evidence that could be contested under an immunity claim were insignificant in light of the substantial evidence supporting guilt.

Prosecutors argued that the disputed evidence constituted only a small fraction of their overall case.

In response to the judge’s ruling, Trump’s communications director, Steven Cheung, criticized the decision as a “direct violation of the Supreme Court’s ruling on immunity and other established legal principles.”

Cheung claimed, “This unfounded case should never have been initiated, and the Constitution necessitates its immediate dismissal.”

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

Judge Merchan highlighted that the Supreme Court’s ruling on immunity clarified that not all actions by a president are official; he specifically noted that Trump’s social media posts were categorized as personal.

He also referenced an earlier federal ruling that indicated the hush money payment and its reimbursements were tied to Trump’s personal life rather than his official duties.

Trump, a Republican, is set to take office again on January 20. He is notable for being the first former president to have been convicted of a felony and the first convicted criminal to reclaim the presidency.

In recent months, Trump’s legal team has attempted multiple times to have the conviction and the case dismissed. Following Trump’s electoral victory last month, Judge Merchan postponed the sentencing—initially scheduled for late November—indefinitely, allowing both the defense and prosecution to propose further actions.

Trump’s defense argued that failing to dismiss the case promptly would disrupt the transfer of power and create unconstitutional complications for the presidency.

Meanwhile, prosecutors put forth several options for preserving the historic conviction, including pausing the case until Trump leaves office in 2029, agreeing that any future sentence would not involve imprisonment, or formally closing the case while recognizing the conviction but stating that sentencing and appeals remain unresolved due to his new term.

This last suggestion is similar to practices some states use when a defendant dies after conviction but before sentencing.

Trump’s attorneys deemed this proposal “absurd” and voiced their objections to the other alternatives proposed by prosecutors.

Throughout the previous year, Trump faced four indictments, with the hush money case being the only one that went to trial.

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

Additionally, a separate state case regarding election interference in Fulton County, Georgia, is currently largely on hold.

Trump has consistently denied any wrongdoing across all of these cases.