Left: Justice Clarence Thomas (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite). Center: Former President Donald Trump sits inside Manhattan Criminal Court (Mark Peterson/Pool Photo via AP). Right: Missouri AG Andrew Bailey (AP Photo/David A. Lieb, File).
For legal experts, it was clear from the start that Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey’s (R) pro-Donald Trump attempt in July to sue New York at the U.S. Supreme Court and shut down the former president’s hush-money sentencing was going to nowhere other than the dustbin of history — and the justices disposed of the case Monday without taking the time to offer any reasoning.
In a one-paragraph order, the Supreme Court denied the Show Me State’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint in the ill-fated state v. state action and rejected Bailey’s request for an injunction or a stay of sentencing and the recently upheld loosened gag order as moot.
The order noted that only Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito would have granted Bailey leave to file the bill of complaint, but this is no surprise, as Law&Crime explained before. They otherwise “would not grant other relief,” the order said.
Bailey had claimed his “one modest request” was to stay “any” Trump sentence in the hush-money case “until after the 2024 election” and to undo a gag order that bars the defendant from making statements about lawyers in the Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg’s (D) office, court or DA staffers, and family members of staffers, lawyers, the court, until sentencing occurs.
More Law&Crime coverage: Missouri AG’s ‘dangerous’ lawsuit to stop Trump hush-money sentencing ‘seriously undermines the integrity of the courts,’ New York tells Supreme Court
When Texas AG Ken Paxton (R) years ago asked for and did not receive leave to file his bill of complaint against swing states to overturn Trump’s 2020 election loss, only two justices, Thomas and Alito, said they would have granted leave. That is because the two justices believe the Supreme Court must take up original (state v. state) actions whenever they are filed.
When the high court rejected Paxton for lacking of standing, Alito issued a statement that was joined by Thomas, saying: “In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction.”
But the two justices, as they told Bailey on Monday, said they would do nothing more than grant Paxton leave to file the case, expressing “no view on any other issue.”
The denial of Bailey, however, did not mention standing or any reasoning.
More Law&Crime coverage: Missouri AG behind pro-Trump lawsuit at Supreme Court must answer questions under oath in local case as ethics concerns swirl
Bailey had claimed that the hush-money prosecution of Trump was an act of “lawfare” that is “poisonous to American democracy,” and he called any sentence — “even probation” — something that was “likely to interfere with Trump’s ability to freely campaign across the country.”
“Missouri is injured by New York’s attempt to use its coercive state power to interfere with the ability of Missouri electors to fulfill their federal function and of Missourians to receive relevant election-related information,” the complaint said.
In a thread of posts on X, Bailey further said that “Right now, Missouri has a huge problem with New York” and “I will not sit idly by while Soros-backed prosecutors in New York hold Missouri voters hostage in this presidential election.”
In response, New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) said the complaint was plainly brought to the advance the “interests” of Trump, not Missouri, and as a result the case “seriously undermine[d] the integrity of the courts and risk[ed] setting a dangerous precedent that encourages a flood of similar, unmeritorious litigation.”
“There is no merit to Missouri’s attempts to identify a cognizable sovereign injury distinct from the individual interests of former President Trump,” the opposition said.
On Monday, Bailey said the high court’s rejection was “disappointing.”
“It’s disappointing that the Supreme Court refused to exercise its constitutional responsibility to resolve state v. state disputes,” he posted on X. “I will continue to prosecute our lawsuit against @KamalaHarris @JoeBiden’s DOJ for coordinating the illicit prosecutions against President Trump.”
Have a tip we should know? [email protected]
