Former President Donald Trump was found guilty of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records, raising concerns over the impact of this conviction on the upcoming 2024 presidential election.
Fox News reported that Yale Law Professor Jed Rubenfeld has suggested several potential legal strategies for Trump's defense team, which may include appealing through the New York Appeals Court system and seeking an emergency temporary restraining order in federal court.
A New York jury found Trump guilty of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records, a case managed by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg.
The conviction centers around hush money payments made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels before the 2016 presidential election.
With sentencing scheduled for July 11, just days before the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Trump’s legal strategy is now a focal point of discussion. Concerns loom over how this legal development could influence his presidential campaign.
Jed Rubenfeld, a Yale Law Professor, examined potential strategies for Trump's legal team during his podcast "Straight Down the Middle." He discussed the option of appealing through the New York Appeals Court system, stressing that this process could extend over several years.
Rubenfeld highlighted the potential for "irreparable harm" if the conviction’s appeal process impacts the upcoming election.
He stated, “Of course that would take years, and that's a problem here. Why is it a problem? It's a problem because the election will have taken place and if this conviction is unlawful and unconstitutional, it could have an effect on that election.”
In addition to appealing, Rubenfeld suggested that Trump's legal team might consider suing in federal court.
This action would aim to secure an emergency temporary restraining order, thus halting the entry of judgment until constitutional issues are thoroughly reviewed.
Rubenfeld articulated the seriousness of these measures, noting, “Even if the conviction were reversed on appeal years later, that effect could not be undone. In legal terms, that's called irreparable harm."
He questioned the constitutionality of the prosecution, emphasizing the critical role of federal court review. "In this federal action, Trump would sue District Attorney Bragg and other state actors and ask the judge, the federal judge, for an emergency temporary restraining order halting Judge Merchan from entering that judgment of guilt until the federal courts have had an opportunity to review and rule out the serious constitutional arguments that exist here," Rubenfeld explained.
Rubenfeld also touched upon the broader implications of targeting a former president and current presidential candidate. He described this move as a "bad look" for the country, particularly given the political affiliations of those involved in the case.
“Going after, criminally, a former president of the United States and somebody who is running for president now, that's a very bad look for this country," Rubenfeld said. He expressed further concern over the clarity of the charges against Trump.
Rubenfeld mentioned, "And it's an even worse look when the crime is so unclear that the state is hiding the ball about what the actual charges are right up through the trial and indeed into the trial. Even now, we don't know exactly what the jury found Trump guilty of." He emphasized the necessity of clear charges and the avoidance of legal vagueness.
Rubenfeld underscored the importance of federal court review to decide the constitutionality of Trump's prosecution. "That's why it's so important for a federal court to review the constitutionality of this prosecution and decide was it constitutional or was it not," he asserted.
He advised that the only way to achieve this review before the election is for Trump's team to file an action in federal court.
Rubenfeld explained, "The only way to achieve that before the election takes place is for the Trump team to file an action in federal court and ask the federal court to temporarily hold off the entry of the judgment of guilt until the federal courts, and maybe the Supreme Court itself, can, on an emergency basis, adjudicate the likelihood of success of these constitutional arguments."
Rubenfeld concluded that this approach, if successful, could provide a vital ruling from the federal judiciary in time for the election. "But if it does happen, the nation could get a ruling from the federal courts, even the Supreme Court of the United States, before the election takes place. Maybe that's what the nation needs, and maybe that's what the law requires here," he mused.
As Trump’s legal team considers their next steps following his felony conviction, Yale Law Professor Jed Rubenfeld's analysis presents potential strategies that could play a pivotal role in shaping the outcome.
With the sentencing scheduled for July and the presidential election on the horizon, the approach taken in the ensuing months will be of critical importance to both Trump’s campaign and the nation's judicial landscape.
