The Supreme Court Can’t Save Trump At This Post-Conviction Stage, Legal Experts Insist


In a new article for MSNBC, legal analyst Norm Eisen and Andrew Warren, who has experience as a prosecutor, argued that there would be no legal basis for the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene at this stage in Donald Trump’s New York City criminal case after his recent conviction.

Trump himself already raised the idea of the nation’s highest court jumping in. The nine-member court currently has three judges on it who were originally nominated by Trump himself when he was still in office as president, though the court’s nonetheless turned back some Trump-aligned efforts already, including in records disputes and after the 2020 election. It rejected, for instance, a case from Texas state Attorney General Ken Paxton challenging Joe Biden’s 2020 wins in four states (none of which were Texas itself).

“The presumptive Republican nominee also urged the U.S. Supreme Court to rescue him from his state court conviction, even though there is no legal basis for it to act before the New York courts have reviewed Trump’s petition,” said Eisen and Warren in their article.

They were arguing more broadly for the gag order that Trump is facing in the case to remain in effect.

Trump was convicted on all counts in the felony case accusing him of falsifying business records in connection to hush money from before the 2016 presidential election for a woman named Stormy Daniels, and he is heading towards a sentencing next month, which is scheduled for just days before Republicans are set to formally kick off their convention proceedings to make Trump the party’s presidential pick for the year. He already secured the necessary level of support to cruise to the title a while ago. Following Trump’s conviction and amid three more criminal cases, Republicans — at the elected and grassroots levels — are largely sticking by him.