Judge denies Donald Trump’s recusal bid, rebuking him for claiming Kamala Harris ties

The judge who oversaw former President Donald Trump’s Manhattan criminal trial declined for a third time to step aside from the case, rebuking the former president’s lawyers for claiming that the judge had a distant yet problematic connection to Vice President Kamala Harris.

In a three-page decision dated Tuesday, the judge, Justice Juan Merchan, slammed Trump’s filing seeking his recusal as “rife with inaccuracies” and repetitive, and dismissed the idea that he had any conflict of interest.

Trump’s lawyers had argued that the judge’s daughter “has a long-standing relationship with Harris” — a claim her colleagues have disputed — and cited her “work for political campaigns” as a Democratic consultant. But prosecutors with the Manhattan district attorney’s office, which secured Trump’s conviction in May on felony charges of falsifying business records, called his request “a vexatious and frivolous attempt to relitigate” an issue that Merchan had already twice dismissed.

Merchan, a moderate Democrat who was once a registered Republican, rejected Trump’s initial bid to oust him last year and did so again in April, on the first day of trial. The judge, who has no direct ties to Harris, cited a state advisory committee on judicial ethics, which determined that his impartiality could not reasonably be questioned based on his daughter’s interests.

Trump, who has stoked right-wing furor against the judge’s daughter, Loren Merchan, renewed the recusal request once President Joe Biden abandoned his presidential campaign and Harris became the presumptive Democratic nominee. She is now locked in a tight race with Trump, who has falsely portrayed his conviction as a Democratic plot to foil his campaign.

“Stated plainly, defendant’s arguments are nothing more than a repetition of stale and unsubstantiated claims,” Juan Merchan wrote in his latest ruling. Underscoring his frustration with the defense’s repetitive filings, he added, “this court now reiterates for the third time, that which should already be clear — innuendo and mischaracterizations do not a conflict create. Recusal is therefore not necessary, much less required.”

Merchan’s decision, while anticipated, is consequential nonetheless: It enables him to soon decide two crucial matters that will shape Trump’s legal fate.

On Sept. 16, the judge is scheduled to determine whether to throw out Trump’s conviction following the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling granting him broad immunity for official actions as president. The former president’s long-shot request was vigorously opposed by prosecutors, who urged Merchan to uphold the jury’s verdict, noting that the case had nothing to do with Trump’s official acts in the White House.

A jury of 12 New Yorkers convicted Trump on all 34 counts, concluding that he had falsified records to cover up a hush-money payment to a porn actor, Stormy Daniels, in the final days of the 2016 campaign. After his fixer, Michael Cohen, paid Daniels $130,000 to bury her story of a sexual liaison with Trump, Trump repaid Cohen and approved plans to lie on paperwork to hide the nature of the reimbursement, the jury found.

If Merchan denies Trump’s immunity motion, as expected, Trump could mount an emergency appeal. If that fails, the judge will then proceed with Trump’s sentencing on Sept. 18. Trump faces up to four years in prison, but could receive a far shorter sentence, or even probation.

Trump’s lawyers had asked the judge to rule on the recusal first, arguing that “Decisions by Your Honor on the pending presidential immunity motion and at any sentencing would benefit not only Harris but also the professional aspirations and financial status of Your Honor’s daughter.”

But Loren Merchan’s employer, Authentic Campaigns, has disputed Trump’s claims.

In a recent letter to the Republican chair of the House Judiciary Committee, which has sought to undermine Trump’s conviction, Authentic’s founder asserted that the company last had a contract with Biden’s campaign in 2020 and Harris’ in 2019.

The founder, Mike Nellis, also said that employees of the company had not communicated with the judge about Trump’s case.

“It is concerning that Republican members of this committee are using valuable time and taxpayer dollars to perpetuate a false right-wing conspiracy theory instead of focusing on the pressing issues facing our nation,” Nellis wrote. “This is a disgraceful misuse of power and a disservice to the American people.”

Nellis added that he and Loren Merchan had faced death threats and harassment.

Juan Merchan has not addressed the congressional scrutiny, though in his latest ruling he implied that Trump’s lawyers were close to crossing a line. “Counsel has been warned repeatedly that such advocacy must not come at the expense of professional responsibility in one’s role as an officer of the court,” he wrote.

The judge’s coming decisions on immunity and sentencing will culminate the battle that Trump has waged with Merchan since before he was arraigned.

Days before he first set foot in the judge’s courtroom, Trump blasted him on social media, saying it would be “IMPOSSIBLE” for “a Trump Hating Judge” to oversee a fair trial. Shortly before the trial, Trump also spread an online hoax that falsely claimed Loren Merchan had publicly posted an image of him behind bars.

Soon after, at the request of prosecutors, Juan Merchan expanded an existing gag order on Trump to prohibit the former president from attacking family members of prosecutors or the judge. The judge loosened the gag order after the trial, but kept in place the prohibition on attacking family members until the sentencing, a decision that a state appeals court recently upheld.

Trump has decried the gag order as unconstitutional, seeking to use it to support his bid to oust Merchan from the case. The former president has also repeatedly cited the judge’s modest donations to Democratic candidates.

As the trial began, Merchan denied Trump’s second request to have him removed, telling the courtroom “there is no agenda here” and “we want justice to be done.”