On Sunday night, former President Donald Trump, who a New York jury found guilty on 34 counts of falsifying business records in a trial widely seen as an American legal travesty, called on the Supreme Court to review the conviction. This demand comes in the wake of what many conservatives view as a politically motivated attack orchestrated by left-wing forces.
Author and TV host Mark Levin suggested the idea of appealing directly to the highest court in the land almost immediately after the verdict was announced on Thursday. Judge Juan Merchan has scheduled Trump’s sentencing for just four days before the Republican National Convention, which starts on July 15.
Trump took to Truth Social on Sunday night, writing, “The ‘Sentencing’ for not having done anything wrong will be, conveniently for the Fascists, 4 days before the Republican National Convention. A Radical Left Soros-backed D.A., who ran on a platform of ‘I will get Trump,’ reporting to an ‘Acting’ Local Judge, appointed by the Democrats, who is HIGHLY CONFLICTED, will make a decision which will determine the future of our Nation? The United States Supreme Court MUST DECIDE!”
On Thursday, Levin elaborated on the legal strategy via X, explaining the potential 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. 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.”
Levin suggested that in New York, the proper course of action would be to file the notice of appeal, request a stay from the trial court, and seek expedited review. This would preserve the ability to appeal timely. He added, “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.”
Highlighting the pervasive denial of due process that plagued the case, Levin argued that the Supreme Court must utilize its common law powers to address these extraordinary circumstances. “Waiting would compound the problem,” he stated.
“We need to give the Supreme Court the opportunity to intervene. If it chooses not to, then it won’t. But between Jack Smith criminalizing election challenges to the point that we do not know what is or is not legal, and now Bragg and Merchan criminalizing events and activities that are not illegal, to the point we don’t now know what they are, the Supreme Court, in my view, must do something. In the end, the S Ct will not be able to avoid this forever. Better to deal with now than later, when it will get worse,” Levin concluded.
