NEW YORK (AP) 鈥� A judge Monday rejected bid to have his hush money conviction dismissed because of the U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling on presidential immunity. But the case's overall future remains unclear.
Manhattan Judge Juan M. Merchan's decision eliminates one potential off-ramp from the case ahead of Trump鈥檚 return to office next month, but his lawyers have raised other arguments for dismissal.
Prosecutors have said there should be some accommodation for his upcoming presidency, but they insist the conviction should stand.
A jury convicted Trump in May of 34 counts of falsifying business records related to a $130,000 hush money payment to porn actor Stormy Daniels in 2016. Trump denies wrongdoing.
The allegations involved a scheme to hide a to porn actor Stormy Daniels during the final days of Trump鈥檚 2016 presidential campaign to silence her claims that they鈥檇 had sex years earlier, which he denies.
A month after the verdict, the that ex-presidents can鈥檛 be prosecuted for official acts 鈥� things they did in the course of running the country 鈥� and that prosecutors can鈥檛 cite those actions to bolster a case centered on purely personal, unofficial conduct.
In Monday's ruling, Merchan denied the bulk of Trump鈥檚 claims that some of prosecutors' evidence related to official acts, and so implicated immunity protections.
The judge said that even if he found that some evidence related to official conduct, he'd still find that prosecutors' decision to use "these acts as evidence of the decidedly personal acts of falsifying business records poses no danger of intrusion on the authority and function of the Executive Branch.鈥�
argue that the hush money jury got some improper evidence, such as Trump鈥檚 presidential financial disclosure form, testimony from some White House aides and social media posts made while he was in office.
and said the evidence in question was only 鈥渁 sliver鈥� of their case.
Trump takes office Jan. 20.
Trump communications director Steven Cheung on Monday called Merchan鈥檚 decision a 鈥渄irect violation of the Supreme Court鈥檚 decision on immunity, and other longstanding jurisprudence.鈥�
鈥淭his lawless case should have never been brought, and the Constitution demands that it be immediately dismissed,鈥� Cheung said in a statement.
Michael R. Sisak, Jake Offenhartz And Jennifer Peltz, The Associated Press
