In August, Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Juan M. Merchan, tasked with presiding over the criminal case against Donald Trump in Manhattan for 2016 “hush money payments” in violation of election laws, rejected Trump’s lawyers’ claims that the judge had disqualifying conflicts of interest and should recuse himself. The reasons for the recusal seemed a stretch at the time, easily the weakest being that, during the 2020 presidential campaign, Justice Merchan had donated the grand total of $15 to Joe Biden. Another was that the judge’s daughter, the president and chief operating officer of a digital marketing agency that has clients who are Democratic candidates, was obviously going to benefit financially Merchan’s decisions in the case.
Justice Merchan ruled, relying, he said, on the guidance of a state advisory committee on judicial ethics, that his impartiality could not “reasonably be questioned” based on “de minimus political contributions made more than two years ago” or his daughter’s business. The latter, he said, could not be substantially affected by the trial. Trump’s attorneys had “failed to demonstrate that there exists concrete, or even realistic reasons for recusal to be appropriate, much less required” because of his daughter’s activities.
Ethics Alarms 