The Supreme Court has ruled against Missouri's intervention in the New York case against former President Donald Trump.
According to Fox News, the justices declined to hear Missouri’s request to intervene, with only Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas partially supporting the state’s effort.
Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey, a Republican, filed the motion as he seeks a full term in the upcoming fall election. Bailey alleged that Trump's prosecutions were orchestrated between the New York authorities and the U.S. Department of Justice. This claim was based on Matthew Colangelo's movement from the DOJ to the Manhattan DA's office to assist in prosecuting Trump.
In May, a jury in New York found Trump guilty of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and New York Attorney General Letitia James led the civil litigation against the former president. Bailey contended that Bragg's prosecution was intended to keep Trump off the campaign trail.
Bailey expressed disappointment with the Supreme Court's ruling during the legal proceedings. "It’s disappointing that the Supreme Court refused to exercise its constitutional responsibility to resolve state v. state disputes," Bailey stated. He also said he would continue to bring legal actions against what he views as coordinated efforts from the Biden administration.
Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas stood apart from their colleagues by supporting Missouri's right to file a bill of complaint, although they did not endorse the other relief requests. Their stance was one of the few elements of support Missouri received from the Supreme Court.
Legal analyst David Gelman described Bailey’s effort as a "Hail Mary" to interrupt the ongoing trial. Gelman also noted that even if the sentencing happens as scheduled in September, it will likely face rapid appeals. "This still doesn’t mean the sentencing will happen in September," Gelman said, adding that the appeals process could be swift.
Bailey’s accusations extend to involving Vice President Kamala Harris and President Joe Biden’s DOJ in what he describes as "illicit prosecutions against President Trump." He insists the investigations had political motivations, especially given their timing after Trump's announcement of his candidacy for President. Bailey argued that this was an attempt by the Biden administration to influence the upcoming elections.
The political ramifications of Trump’s legal troubles remain significant for the Republican Party. Bailey’s legal actions are closely tied to his campaign for a full term as Missouri’s Attorney General. His stance resonates with a portion of the GOP base that supports Trump and believes the former President is being treated unfairly by the judicial system.
In Bailey's view, the timing and nature of the charges against Trump show a clear pattern of political bias:
Given the timing (Bragg charged Trump only after Trump declared his candidacy for President), the transparent weakness of the charges, and the effect the charges have in keeping Trump off the campaign trail.
While Bailey continues his legal fight, Trump's camp prepares for potential outcomes in September. The political landscape remains charged as both sides await the next developments.
This decision marks another chapter in Trump’s ongoing legal battles, which have had widespread political implications. Bailey’s future legal actions could further complicate the landscape as Trump's team gears up for an appeal if the sentencing proceeds.
To summarize, the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear Missouri’s intervention in Trump's New York case reflects the complexities of the legal and political dimensions involved. Alito and Thomas slightly differed from their peers, while veteran observers highlighted the ingenuity of Bailey’s legal maneuvers. The decision leaves many questions about the future implications of Trump's judicial struggles and their effects on the 2024 presidential race.
