According to the Washington Examiner, New York officials have petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to dismiss a lawsuit from Missouri that challenges former President Donald Trump’s criminal sentencing.
Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey has initiated legal action against New York in an effort to prevent Trump’s criminal sentence and lift his gag order. Bailey asserts that the conviction infringes on the constitutional rights of Missouri’s voters and electors.
The lawsuit aims to use the Supreme Court’s authority to resolve disputes between states. However, New York Attorney General Letitia James responded with a 48-page brief arguing that Missouri's claims lack basis and are grounded in an ongoing criminal case in New York.
James emphasized that the issues raised by Missouri are already being addressed in New York state courts. She argued Missouri’s claims are without merit and are speculative since the outcomes are currently under review.
In her response, James stated, "Missouri’s suit is based entirely on an ongoing criminal case between the Manhattan DA and former President Trump and does not present an actual controversy between sovereign States.” New York contends that Missouri’s attempt to intervene seriously undermines judicial integrity and risks establishing a dangerous precedent.
Bailey’s lawsuit contends that New York’s legal actions breach the First Amendment rights of Missouri residents. However, James countered that Missouri’s efforts to interfere are speculative and unwarranted.
James added, “Moreover, former President Trump has already raised, and the New York state courts are already adjudicating, the same issues Missouri seeks to raise.” This indicates that the legal proceedings in New York should intellectually and legally resolve the matter.
In May, Trump was found guilty on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related to hush money payments to Stormy Daniels. The payments were intended to affect the 2016 presidential election.
James further argued that Missouri lacks the necessary standing to bring a complaint, as Bailey’s claims are based on speculative grounds. She believes the entirety of Missouri’s lawsuit should be dismissed due to this lack of standing.
“Even if the motion [to vacate the jury verdict] is denied, he can appeal his conviction, and his sentence may well be stayed pending appeal,” James wrote, underscoring that the issues Missouri is trying to push are already being actively contested.
Trump, who has denied having any affair with Daniels, has stated his intent to appeal the conviction. This highlights that there are multiple avenues through which the matter is being contested, reducing the urgency or necessity of a Supreme Court intervention.
According to James, allowing Missouri’s suit to proceed would allow an “extraordinary and dangerous end-run around former President Trump’s ongoing state court proceedings.” This could lead to a proliferation of similar, meritless litigation.
In summary, New York officials are seeking the Supreme Court’s intervention to block Missouri’s lawsuit concerning Trump’s sentencing. They argue that the issues Missouri raises are already being handled within New York’s jurisdiction and that Missouri’s claims are speculative and lack standing.
