Clarence Thomas Breaks With Supreme Court Over Donald Trump Trial Lawsuit

On Monday, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas diverged from the majority opinion in a ruling that blocked Missouri from suing New York over the prosecution of former President Donald Trump by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg.

Trump was convicted in May on 34 counts of falsifying business records and is scheduled for sentencing in September, barring any further delays. Despite the trial's minimal apparent impact on Trump's electoral prospects this year, Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey contended that the gag order and the timing of the sentencing before the election encroach upon the rights of Missouri voters.

The Supreme Court, however, rejected Bailey's arguments. In its order on Monday, the Court denied his motion to file a complaint against Bragg, rendering the relief he sought moot as a result of his inability to proceed with the complaint.

Thomas, alongside Justice Samuel Alito, concurred with the Court’s decision to deny Bailey's relief request but dissented from the majority’s refusal to permit the lawsuit. Thomas and Alito would have allowed the motion to file the bill of complaint.

Trump’s conviction is linked to payments made to silence allegations of an affair with adult film star Stormy Daniels. His legal team is now challenging the verdict, citing alleged judicial bias and a recent Supreme Court ruling concerning presidential immunity.

The former president has characterized the indictments as a "witch hunt" aimed at derailing his chances in this year's election. As Vice President Kamala Harris, the likely Democratic presidential nominee, intensifies her criticism of Trump's conviction, he has renewed his attempts to lift a gag order imposed by Judge Juan Merchan, who is overseeing the case. Trump argues that the gag order hampers his ability to respond to Harris's attacks.

Newsweek reached out to New York Attorney General Letitia James and Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey for comment via email but did not receive a response by publication time.

In his legal filings, Bailey argued that Bragg's actions have inflicted "constitutional harms" that threaten the rights of Missouri voters. He claimed that the gag order and impending sentencing obstruct the electors' ability to perform their federal duties and infringe upon the First Amendment rights of Missouri citizens to hear Trump's campaign messages about the case. Bailey also asserted that these actions violate the Purcell principle, which advises against altering election rules close to an election to avoid confusion and complications for election administrators.

"Missouri respectfully submits that these violations inflict significant harm on voters and electors in Missouri, who will be denied the opportunity to fully engage with and hear from a major-party presidential candidate leading up to the November election," Bailey stated.

Bailey placed the responsibility for these alleged harms on Bragg, accusing him of making an "unprecedented decision" to prosecute Trump for "bookkeeping offenses" in the critical months before the presidential election.

James, in response, urged the Supreme Court to dismiss Missouri's lawsuit, asserting that the dispute was between Bragg and Trump, not a matter of state sovereignty. She further contended that Bailey’s claims were "patently meritless.