The Supreme Court’s Monday decision on Donald Trump’s legal immunity boosted his defenses in the ongoing criminal cases against him — and raised questions about whether the recent conviction in his Manhattan hush-money trial will be impacted. Trump was convicted in May of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in an attempt to cover up a conspiracy to win the 2016 election. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s historic case marked the first time a former U.S. president ever faced a criminal trial. The Supreme Court’s decision provided Trump expanded immunity from prosecution for official acts he committed as president. It is expected to delay his trial in Washington, D.C., where he was charged with illegally attempting to overturn the results of the 2020 election. So, can Trump use the presidential immunity expanded by the Supreme Court on Monday to challenge his conviction in the hush-money case? The short answer is no, according to legal experts. The underlying scheme to influence the results of the election took place in the leadup to the election, before he was president, noted attorney Ron Kuby. Plus, the repayments to Michael Cohen for paying off porn star Stormy Daniels were a “classic” example of official acts. “Bragg from the beginning designed this case to avoid all of the questions about presidential power and presidential authority,” Kuby said of the DA and his case. “Everything Trump did that was criminal he did, one, before he was elected and, two, has no official immunity.” The Supreme Court ruled Trump and other presidents are criminally immune for official acts taken within the official duties of the job. During the Manhattan trial, Trump’s lawyers argued that his payments to Cohen were personal payments made to his attorney. Lawyer Todd Blanche argued during summations that Trump was simply “paying his personal attorney” pursuant to an agreement they made — not repaying him for the hush money. Trump has invoked presidential immunity in several of his cases without success so far — including with E. Jean Carroll, whom he was ultimately found liable for sexually assaulting, delaying the case for years. Lanny Davis, a legal expert who was formerly Michael Cohen’s lawyer, said that the decision would have little impact on the hush-money case because paying hush money is not an executive function. He also said Trump directed Cohen to pay hush money to Daniels before he was president. However, Trump’s lawyers previously argued that certain pieces of evidence — including threatening posts directed at Michael Cohen and denigrating Daniels while he was in office — are eligible for immunity. His lawyers could argue this on appeal, but Lanny Davis, a legal expert who was formerly Cohen’s lawyer, pointed to unsuccessful past attempts in arguing immunity. “They tried a lot of things as defense lawyers, and they didn’t succeed in any of them,” Davis said. “I don’t think calling Stormy Daniels ‘horseface’ in a tweet constitutes an official press communication even if he was president when he did it,” Kuby said. Moreover, last year, Trump’s attempt to get the hush-money charges moved to federal court was thrown out. “The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that the matter was a purely a personal item of the president — a coverup of an embarrassing event,” Manhattan Federal Judge Alvin Hellerstein wrote in July 2023. “Hush money paid to an adult film star is not related to a president’s official acts,” he added. “It does not reflect in any way the color of the president’s official duties.”