Ann Arbor Times

Will Thomas, an assistant professor of business law at the University of Michigan’s Ross School of Business, has been closely monitoring the legal developments surrounding Donald Trump. As Trump prepares to take office for a second term, his legal challenges remain a significant issue.

Thomas notes that Trump was recently sentenced by a New York trial court on 34 felony counts related to falsifying business records. These charges are connected to efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election illegally. However, instead of facing imprisonment or fines, Trump received an "unconditional discharge." This means he was convicted but not punished.

Some commentators view this conviction as symbolically important because it makes Trump the first criminal elected president. However, Thomas suggests this status might not last long due to the Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. United States. This ruling from last summer could reshape how U.S. presidents' actions are constrained legally and might lead to Trump's conviction being overturned.

The case emerged from a federal indictment against Trump concerning his role in the January 6 insurrection but extends beyond those facts. The Supreme Court's opinion creates new protections that may impact Trump's state prosecutions in New York and Georgia. Chief Justice John Roberts stated that evidence related to a president's "official acts" can't be used in criminal cases unless prosecutors meet a high legal threshold.

For Trump, whose alleged crimes began before his presidency, this distinction between "official" and "unofficial" acts is crucial. Some actions during his first term might now be considered private acts relevant to his trial. The Supreme Court mandates that these distinctions be made before trials begin, which wasn't possible during Trump's trial since the decision came afterward.

Trump's legal team has attempted to overturn his conviction based on this new framework, but so far, their requests have been denied by the trial court. However, with sentencing complete, the case moves to the New York Court of Appeals, which might rule in favor of Trump's arguments given the Supreme Court's guidance.

Ultimately, any decision by state appellate courts will likely end up before the Supreme Court due to its constitutional implications on evidentiary procedures and presidential immunity issues raised by Trump v. United States.

Recently, Trump sought direct intervention from the Supreme Court to bypass New York’s appeals process—a request declined by the court. Still, four conservative justices expressed their willingness to address Trump's conviction sooner rather than later.

According to Thomas: “Taken together, the Supreme Court has set the stage for Trump to challenge his New York conviction... If things go his way... he may well stop being a criminal too.”