Can The Supreme Court Intervene After Trump’s Conviction? Legal Experts Say Yes.

 The guilty verdict against former President Donald Trump reached by a Manhattan jury on Thursday could ultimately be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court, legal experts said.

Trump was convicted on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in an unprecedented verdict against the presumptive Republican presidential nominee just months before the 2024 election. The verdict is likely to be appealed by Trump’s legal team, however, and experts say the final decision in Trump’s hush-money trial could come down to a ruling from the highest court in the land.

Attorney Roger Severino, who is the vice president of Domestic Policy and the Joseph C. and Elizabeth A. Anderlik fellow at the Heritage Foundation, told “Morning Wire” on Friday that Trump’s legal team could make “constitutional arguments that his right to a fair trial was violated.”

“And the Constitution means something,” Severino added. “It means, if anything, you cannot jail political opponents because you don’t like what the American people are going to vote for.”

Severino said that he believes the Supreme Court will intervene in the case if Trump doesn’t win on appeal.

“Ultimately, I think the Supreme Court, if he doesn’t win on appeal, will take this up and reverse,” the attorney said. “This is a political prosecution. We are better than this as a country and this cannot stand.”

The Heritage Foundation fellow added that whether Trump ends up behind bars is still unknown, saying “it would be shameful if this judge were to order this man to go to jail when they weren’t able to point to any victims.”

“This is so shocking and unprecedented that we’re even discussing the possibility of putting political opponents in jail in the middle of an election,” he said. 

Judge Juan Merchan scheduled Trump’s sentencing for July 11, just four days before the start of the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee where Trump is set to be nominated for president. The former president could face up to four years in prison. 

Lawyer and political commentator Mark Levin also wrote about the possibility of the Supreme Court ruling on Trump’s guilty verdict, sayinghe was surprised that “TV lawyers and others” talking about Trump’s conviction “ignore a federal path to the Supreme Court.”

“The issue is how to get out of the New York system and bring the case to the Supreme Court, which may or may not take it up,” Levin wrote on Thursday night. “That is why I look to Bush v Gore, where the S Ct decided to step in BECAUSE it was a presidential election.”

“There was another court involved, the Florida Supreme Court. And it was that court that the Supreme Court believed was violating the Equal Protection Clause. That was the doctrine it settled on, given the unequal treatment of voters,” he added.

Levin then laid out how the case that was prosecuted by Manhattan Democratic District Attorney Alvin Bragg and decided by 12 Manhattan jurors could go before the Supreme Court.

“In New York, you would file the notice of appeal, ask for a stay of the trial court, and seek expedited review,” he wrote. “You need to protect your ability to timely appeal and not abandon it. You might then file applications for common law writs with the US Supreme Court, where the S Ct can take action if it chooses, and legitimately claim the harm is immediate and ongoing not just to a presidential candidate, but to the federal electoral system, federal campaign jurisdiction (reverse federalism), and the precedent that might otherwise be set and spread throughout the country. The denial of due process infected every aspect of the case.”