Politics
Column: Will Trump's conviction survive the Supreme Court's immunity ruling? It's complicated
It was only hours after the Supreme Court issued its staggering term-ending opinion on presidential immunity when Donald Trump invoked it in an attempt to set aside his criminal conviction in New York.
On the surface, the effort would seem ill-fated and even brazen.
The opinion made a top-line distinction between “official actions” — which are either immune or presumed immune from criminal prosecution — and “unofficial actions,” which are not. And it’s hard to imagine more prototypically unofficial actions than those of which Trump was convicted in the New York case. While still running for president, Trump devised a scheme to suppress stories of his alleged trysts — in particular with the adult film actor Stormy Daniels — and falsified business records to further the cover-up.
Most of the critical conduct took place before Trump was in office, the exception being the payments to his fixer, Michael Cohen, that generated the false paperwork. And the reimbursement of Cohen from a personal bank account was patently unofficial conduct even though it coincided with Trump’s presidency.
So Judge Juan M. Merchan, who presided over the trial, might be expected to make quick work of Trump’s effort to shoehorn the conviction into the sphere of “official action” for which the court prescribed immunity.
In fact, however, the court’s opinion is strewn with mines and sinkholes that Trump might be able to use to gain a new trial or at least render his conviction provisional for an extended period. These facets of the opinion are part and parcel of its enormous scope and overreach, all to protect a party of exactly one: the only president ever to be charged with a crime.
The court’s revolutionary holding places the president largely outside the reach of criminal law, but the conservative majority wasn’t content to stop there. Its expansive guidance “for the ages,” as Justice Neil M. Gorsuch put it at oral argument, dictates that a jury may not even consider a president’s official acts as evidence to prove a crime involving unofficial conduct.
The court’s reasoning here is particularly threadbare, simply asserting that allowing evidence of official actions would undo the protections of immunity, which the conservative majority considers necessary to ensure a nimble and vigorous presidency. Yet it makes little sense to suggest that a president would be constrained by the prospect that a jury might one day hear about their official actions. Most official actions are public anyway, and those that aren’t can be protected by executive privilege and other means when there is a particular need to to so.
This is where Justice Amy Coney Barrett parted with her fellow conservatives, noting that “the Constitution does not require blinding juries to the circumstances surrounding conduct for which Presidents can be held liable.”
In the context of Trump’s motion to set aside his New York conviction, a fair-minded court should have little trouble concluding that the conduct at issue was unofficial and therefore not subject even to the generous immunity protections prescribed by the justices. However, some of the evidence presented at trial at least arguably concerned official conduct, particularly under the Supreme Court’s wide-ranging, categorical definition of the term.
Most notably, the jury heard testimony from Hope Hicks about a conversation she had with Trump in 2018, when she was the White House communications director, about a report on Cohen’s hush money payments to Daniels and its public opinion repercussions. Prosecutors described Hicks’ testimony, which ended with her breaking down in tears, as “devastating.”
So was Trump’s conversation with Hicks in the White House “official conduct” that, under the immunity opinion, never should have been presented to the jury? And if so, do the convictions have to be set aside?
Those questions are far from straightforward. The answers depend not only on how the Hicks conversation is characterized but also on a thicket of procedural issues. Those include whether Trump may have waived the issue, whether any waiver applies under the Supreme Court’s holding and whether any error in allowing the testimony could be deemed harmless given the strength of the rest of the evidence.
Trump’s conviction may well survive the Supreme Court ruling in the end, but getting to that point won’t be quick or simple. Moreover, Merchan’s ruling is likely to be appealed to higher courts in New York and eventually the U.S. Supreme Court. That prospect could well temper the analysis of lower courts that now understand the breadth and zeal of the justices’ determination to shield Trump from accountability.
It appears as if the Supreme Court has dealt Trump not just a get-out-of-jail-free card but a whole deck of them, allowing him to contest and delay multiple facets of the nearly 100 criminal counts against him. If it turns out that he can use it to his advantage in New York, where he stands already convicted of manifestly personal conduct, it’s hard to imagine a case where he can’t.
Harry Litman is the host of the “Talking Feds” podcast and the “Talking San Diego” speaker series. @harrylitman
Politics
Republicans light cigars, cigarettes on burning photos of Khamenei to show support for Iranian protesters
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Republican lawmakers are jumping on a social media trend to show their support for the anti-regime protesters in Iran.
Sen. Tim Sheehy, R-Mont., and Rep. Claudia Tenney, R-N.Y., posted photos of themselves using burning photos of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to light up a cigarette and a cigar respectively. Both lawmakers used the caption “Smoke ’em if you got ’em.”
The lawmaker’s images mirror a social media trend in which people are using burning photos of Khamenei to light cigarettes and cigars. The trend emerged as the people of Iran hold increasingly intense protests against the Islamic regime. The movement against the regime has seen increasing support from abroad as world leaders back the people of Iran.
FREED IRANIAN PRISONER SAYS ‘IN TRUMP, THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC HAS MET ITS MATCH’
People gather during a protest on Jan. 8, 2026, in Tehran, Iran. (Anonymous/Getty Images)
Khamenei’s regime has started to crack down on protests and even instituted a sweeping internet blackout to try to quell the unrest. Some have posited that the internet blackout was also meant to impede the spreading of information about and visuals of abuses committed against protesters by regime-backed forces.
Recently, exiled Iranian crown prince Reza Pahlavi has publicly urged President Donald Trump and the U.S. to back protesters in Iran as they fight the decades-old regime.
Sheehy told Fox News Digital that he takes the issue personally, saying that Iran has participated in the torturing, kidnapping and killing of Americans across the globe, “including friends of mine.”
“The Iranian regime are a bunch of murderous b——- who have been chanting ‘death to America’ for the past 46 years. They have backed up this chant by kidnapping, torturing, and killing thousands of Americans all over the world, including friends of mine. For me, it’s personal; it’s time to take out the trash,” Sheehy said in a statement provided to Fox News Digital via email.
Sen. Tim Sheehy, R-Mont., showed his solidarity with the people of Iran by hopping on a social media trend in which she used a burning photo of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to light a cigarette. (Courtesy of Sen. Tim Sheehy’s Office)
US HOSTAGES IN IRAN FACE HEIGHTENED RISK AS PROTESTS SPREAD, EXPERTS SAY NUMBER HELD MAY EXCEED ESTIMATES
The senator also expressed his solidarity with the people of Iran and encouraged them to keep fighting the regime.
“To the Iranian people — we applaud your courage, keep fighting, and know we fully support your brave efforts to topple this evil regime,” he added.
Tenney’s office also spoke with Fox News Digital about the congresswoman’s post, praising the bravery of the people of Iran for standing up to the regime. Additionally, Tenney’s office expressed the congresswoman’s solidarity with the Iranian people.
“The bravery of the Iranian people in the face of decades of oppression by a brutal, extremist regime is extraordinary. Men and women across Iran are risking their lives to stand up to authoritarian mullahs who have denied them basic freedoms for generations,” Tenney’s office said in a statement to Fox News Digital.
Rep. Claudia Tenney, R-N.Y., showed her solidarity with the people of Iran by hopping on a social media trend in which she used a burning photo of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to light a cigar. (Courtesy of Rep. Claudia Tenney’s Office)
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
“The congresswoman stands firmly with the Iranian people and their demand for dignity and self-determination, and believes their courage must be recognized and amplified. Today, the Iranian people finally have an ally in the White House, President Trump, who has made clear that the United States stands with those fighting for freedom against tyranny,” Tenney’s office added.
Trump has been vocal about his support for the people of Iran and has warned that the U.S. would be ready to step in if the regime used violence against protesters.
“Iran is looking at FREEDOM, perhaps like never before,” the president wrote in a Truth Social post on Jan. 10. “The USA stands ready to help!!!”
Politics
California launches investigation into child porn on Elon Musk’s AI site
SACRAMENTO — California announced an investigation into Elon Musk’s artificial intelligence company xAI on Wednesday, with Gov. Gavin Newsom saying that the social media site owned by the billionaire is a “breeding ground for predators to spread nonconsenual sexually explicit AI deepfakes.”
Grok, the xAI chatbot, includes image-generation features that allow users to morph existing photos into new images. The newly created images are then posted publicly on X.
In some cases, users have created sexually explicit or nonconsensual images based on real people, including altered depictions that appear to show individuals partially or fully undressed. Others have generated images that appear to show minors, prompting criticism that there are not sufficient guardrails to prohibit the creation of child pornography.
The social media site has previously said “we take action against illegal content on X, including Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM), by removing it, permanently suspending accounts, and working with local governments and law enforcement as necessary. Anyone using or prompting Grok to make illegal content will suffer the same consequences as if they upload illegal content.”
Newsom called the sexualized images being created on the platform “vile.” Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said his office will use “all tools at our disposal to keep Californians safe.”
“The avalanche of reports detailing the non-consensual, sexually explicit material that xAI has produced and posted online in recent weeks is shocking,” Bonta said in a statement Wednesday. “This material, which depicts women and children in nude and sexually explicit situations, has been used to harass people across the internet. I urge xAI to take immediate action to ensure this goes no further. We have zero tolerance for the AI-based creation and dissemination of nonconsensual intimate images or of child sexual abuse material.”
Newsom signed a pair of bills in 2024 that made it illegal to create, possess or distribute sexually charged images of minors even when they’re created with computers, not cameras. The measures took effect last year.
Assembly Bill 1831, authored by Assemblymember Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park), expanded the state’s child-porn prohibition to material that “contains a digitally altered or artificial-intelligence-generated depiction [of] what appears to be a person under 18 years of age” engaging in or simulating sexual conduct. Senate Bill 1381, authored by Sen. Aisha Wahab (D-Hayward), amended state law to more clearly prohibit using AI to create images of real children engaged in sexual conduct, or using children as models for digitally altered or AI-generated child pornography.
Politics
Video: Supreme Court May Allow States to Bar Transgender Athletes
new video loaded: Supreme Court May Allow States to Bar Transgender Athletes
transcript
transcript
Supreme Court May Allow States to Bar Transgender Athletes
The Supreme Court heard two cases from West Virginia and Idaho on Tuesday. Both concerned barring the participation of transgender athletes in girls’ and women’s sports teams.
-
“It is undisputed that states may separate their sports teams based on sex in light of the real biological differences between males and females. States may equally apply that valid sex-based rule to biological males who self-identify as female. Denying a special accommodation to trans-identifying individuals does not discriminate on the basis of sex or gender identity or deny equal protection.” “West Virginia argues that to protect these opportunities for cisgender girls, it has to deny them to B.P.J. But Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause protect everyone. And if the evidence shows there are no relevant physiological differences between B.P.J. and other girls, then there’s no basis to exclude her.” “Given that half the states are allowing it, allowing transgender girls and women to participate, about half are not, why would we at this point, just the role of this court, jump in and try to constitutionalize a rule for the whole country while there’s still, as you say, uncertainty and debate, while there’s still strong interest in other side?” “This court has held in cases like V.M.I. that in general, classification based on sex is impermissible because in general, men and women are simply situated. Where that’s not true is for the sorts of real, enduring, obvious differences that this court talked about in cases like V.M.I., the differences in reproductive biology. I don’t think the pseudoscience you’re suggesting has been baked.” “Well, it’s not pseudo. It’s good science.” “It’s not pseudoscience to say boys’ brain development happens at a different stage than girls does.” “Well, with all respect, I don’t think there’s any science anywhere that is suggested that these intellectual differences are traceable to biological differences.” “Can we avoid your whole similarly situated argument that you run because I don’t really like it that much either? And I’m not trying to prejudice anyone making that argument later. But I mean, I think it opens a huge can of worms that maybe we don’t need to get into here.”
By Meg Felling
January 13, 2026
-
Montana4 days agoService door of Crans-Montana bar where 40 died in fire was locked from inside, owner says
-
Technology1 week agoPower bank feature creep is out of control
-
Delaware5 days agoMERR responds to dead humpback whale washed up near Bethany Beach
-
Dallas, TX6 days agoAnti-ICE protest outside Dallas City Hall follows deadly shooting in Minneapolis
-
Dallas, TX1 week agoDefensive coordinator candidates who could improve Cowboys’ brutal secondary in 2026
-
Virginia4 days agoVirginia Tech gains commitment from ACC transfer QB
-
Iowa1 week agoPat McAfee praises Audi Crooks, plays hype song for Iowa State star
-
Education1 week agoVideo: This Organizer Reclaims Counter Space