As I wrote earlier on this blog site, President Donald Trump's First Amendment freedom of speech rights render his recent convictions in a Manhattan New York State trial court unconstitutional. The unconstitutional trial that President Trump was subjected to occurred in the most liberal borough, of the most liberal city, of one of the most liberal States in the country. This unconstitutional trial has poisoned the ongoing federal presidential election of 2024 based on a misinterpretation of federal election law making immediate federal Supreme Court review essential. The New York Court of Appeals must rule quickly on the constitutionality of President Trump's convictions, so that President Trump can get federal Supreme Court review of his First Amendment claims well before the November presidential election. American voters deserve to know as fast as possible if President Trump's criminal convictions are unconstitutional, as I believe them to be.
There are many issues of state law on which President Trump can and should appeal his convictions due to the improper behavior of both the trial judge and the district attorney. But, it is imperative that those issues be separated, if possible under New York law, from the federal question of the violation of President Trump's First Amendment rights so that that issue can be addressed quickly by the federal Supreme Court. President Trump should ask for a bifurcated appeals process whereby his First Amendment federal question gets ruled on immediately by the New York Court of Appeals, even as a longer appellate process takes place to consider President Trump's many New York State law claims on appeal.
28 U.S.C. Section 1257(a) provides that: "Final judgments or decrees rendered by the highest court of a State in which a decision could be had, may be reviewed by the Supreme Court by writ of certiorari *** where any title, right, privilege, or immunity is specially set up or claimed under the Constitution or the treaties or statutes of*** the United States." President Trump's claim that his recent convictions are in violation of the First Amendment are reviewable by the federal Supreme Court by a writ of certiorari once the New York Court of Appeals has ruled on them.
