Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas broke with the majority of the Supreme Court on Monday in a ruling that prevented the state of Missouri from suing the state of New York over Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg‘s prosecution of former President Donald Trump.
Trump was found guilty on 34 counts of falsifying business records in May and, if there are no other delays, will be sentenced in September. Trump’s trial hasn’t shown to have a huge impact on his ability to win the election this year, but Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey argued that the gag order and sentencing occurring before the election infringes on the rights of Missouri voters.
The Supreme Court, however, disagreed. In an order on Monday, the Court denied Bailey’s motion to file a complaint against Bragg and since he couldn’t file the complaint, they rendered the relief he sought as moot.
Thomas and Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito agreed with the Court to not grant the relief Bailey wanted, but broke with the other justices on the decision to prevent the lawsuit from taking place. Thomas and Alito would grant the motion to file the bill of complaint.
Trump’s conviction stems from payments that were intended to silence allegations of a sexual encounter with adult film actress Stormy Daniels. Trump’s legal team is now seeking to overturn the verdict, citing alleged judicial bias and a recent Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity.
The former president has likened the indictments against him to a “witch hunt” intended to keep him from winning this year’s election. As Vice President Kamala Harris, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, ramps up attacks on Trump’s conviction, he has renewed efforts to lift a gag order Judge Juan Merchan put in place, arguing that it prevents him from responding to her attacks.
Baily argued in his legal filing that Bragg created “constitutional harms” that threaten to infringe on Missouri voters’ rights. He said the gag order and impending sentence prevent the electors from fulfilling their federal functions and violate the First Amendment rights of Missouri citizens to listen to Trump’s campaign speeches about the case.
Bailey also claimed in his filing that the gag order and sentencing violates the Purcell principle, which states courts shouldn’t change election rules prior to the election because of the potential to cause confusion for voters and issues for officials tasked with administering the election.
Alex Wong/Getty Images
“Missouri respectfully submits that the forgoing violations establish considerable harms to voters and electors in Missouri, who will be precluded from fully engaging with and hearing from a major-party Presidential candidate in the run up to the November election,” Bailey wrote.
The Missouri attorney general put the blame squarely on Bragg and his “unprecedented decision” to prosecute Trump for “bookkeeping offenses” in the months leading up to the presidential election.
New York Attorney General Letitia James asked the Supreme Court to throw out Missouri’s lawsuit, arguing that the justices don’t have the jurisdiction. She argued the conflict was between Bragg and Trump and not the sovereignty of two different states. She added that Bailey’s claims were “patently meritless.”
This is a breaking news story and when be updated when more information becomes available.