Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from the majority of the Supreme Court on Monday in a ruling that prevented Missouri from suing 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 is scheduled for sentencing in September, barring further delays. Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey argued that the gag order and sentencing before the election infringed on the rights of Missouri voters told NPR.
The Supreme Court, however, disagreed. On Monday, it denied Bailey’s motion to file a complaint against Bragg, rendering the relief he sought as moot since the complaint couldn’t be filed.
Justice Thomas, along with Justice Samuel Alito, agreed with the Court’s decision not to grant Bailey the relief he wanted but disagreed on preventing the lawsuit. Both Thomas and Alito would have granted the motion to file the bill of complaint.
Trump’s conviction stems from payments made to silence allegations of a sexual encounter with adult film star Stormy Daniels. Trump’s legal team is seeking to overturn the verdict, citing alleged judicial bias and a recent Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity.
The former president has characterized the indictments as a “witch hunt” aimed at preventing him from winning this year’s election. Vice President Kamala Harris, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, has intensified her criticism of Trump’s conviction. In response, Trump has renewed efforts to lift the gag order imposed by Judge Juan Merchan, arguing it hampers his ability to counter Harris’s attacks.
Newsweek reached out to New York Attorney General Letitia James and Attorney General Andrew Bailey for comment but did not receive a response in time for publication. Bailey argued in his legal filing that Bragg created “constitutional harms” that infringe on Missouri voters’ rights. He claimed the gag order and impending sentence prevent voters from fully engaging with Trump’s campaign speeches about the case and violate the First Amendment rights of Missouri citizens.
Bailey also asserted that the gag order and sentencing violate the Purcell principle, which advises against changing election rules close to an election due to potential voter confusion and administrative issues. “Missouri respectfully submits that the foregoing 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.
Bailey blamed Bragg’s “unprecedented decision” to prosecute Trump for “bookkeeping offenses” as the cause of these issues. Attorney General James asked the Supreme Court to dismiss Missouri’s lawsuit, arguing that the conflict was between Bragg and Trump, not between the states. She added that Bailey’s claims were “patently meritless.”