•HRES 1315 IH 
Whereas, in the case of The People of the State of New York 
v. Donald J. Trump, a conviction on several counts was 
entered against former President and presumptive Re-
publican nominee for President, former President Donald 
J. Trump, on May 20, 2024, in the Supreme Court of 
the State of New York, New York County; 
Whereas this conviction was the result of a targeted, dogged, 
abusive, desperate, and politically motivated prosecution 
by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg; 
Whereas District Attorney Alvin Bragg resurrected a zombie 
case, declined by the Federal prosecutors of the Southern 
District of New York and previously declined by his own 
District Attorney’s office; 
Whereas the Federal Election Commission likewise found no 
reason to issue a civil fine over the same allegations; 
Whereas elected District Attorney Alvin Bragg resurrected 
this zombie case to fulfill his electoral promise to New 
Yorkers to hold former President Trump ‘‘accountable’’; 
Whereas Alvin Bragg even went so far as to staff his office 
with zealous activists, like former senior Biden Depart-
ment of Justice official Matthew Colangelo, who has pre-
viously targeted former President Trump, to drive the 
prosecution; 
Whereas the judge in the case, Juan Merchan, has and had 
a clear conflict of interest in the case, with his daughter’s 
role as president of Authentic Campaigns, a firm known 
for representing and fundraising for Democrat politi-
cians, and whose Democrat clients have fundraised off of 
this prosecution; 
Whereas the New York State Commission on Judiciary Con-
duct privately cautioned Judge Merchan in July over his 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
01:13 Jun 22, 2024
Jkt 049200
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6300
E:\BILLS\HR1315.IH
HR1315
ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
•HRES 1315 IH 
own illegal and unethical political donations to Biden and 
Democrats in 2020, while a sitting judge of the New 
York State Supreme Court; 
Whereas members of this chamber have filed a complaint 
against Judge Merchan with the New York State Com-
mission on Judiciary Conduct regarding these impropri-
eties; 
Whereas throughout the pretrial and trial proceedings Judge 
Merchan consistently demonstrated favor toward the 
prosecution through rulings and unconstitutional gag or-
ders on the presumptive Republican nominee for Presi-
dent; 
Whereas the unprecedented nature of the prosecution and 
overwhelming public interest in the case of The People of 
the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump is matter of 
public record and merits both judicial notice and judicial 
intervention from superior Federal courts; 
Whereas this conviction was based on novel, questionable, 
and untested legal theories advanced for the purpose of 
a targeted prosecution against the former President and 
presumptive Republican nominee; 
Whereas there are serious, substantial, and dire questions of 
Federal and constitutional law under the First Amend-
ment, Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment, and Four-
teenth Amendment, requiring dispositive resolution before 
the Court arising from multiple reversible, clear errors in 
the case of The People of the State of New York v. Don-
ald J. Trump; 
Whereas the charges against former President Trump were 
misdemeanors time-barred by the New York statute of 
limitations; 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
01:13 Jun 22, 2024
Jkt 049200
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6300
E:\BILLS\HR1315.IH
HR1315
ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
•HRES 1315 IH 
Whereas the charges against former President Trump in-
volved conduct allegations, such as Federal elections law 
violations, that are the exclusive jurisdiction of Federal 
authorities to enforce and resolve; 
Whereas former President Trump was convicted based on un-
charged conduct, ranging from conspiracy to conceal a 
Federal election law violation and falsification of business 
records, to tax law violations, which never had to be prov-
en at trial or specified; 
Whereas that uncharged and unproven conduct provided the 
predicate for felony escalation and the basis for avoiding 
the time-bar that would otherwise have precluded the en-
tire proceeding; 
Whereas prosecutors were permitted to expressly state to the 
jury that it was ‘‘a fact’’ that Federal election law viola-
tions occurred in this case at the direction of former 
President Trump, even though that ‘‘fact’’ was directly at 
issue in the case and required a factual finding by the 
jury to maintain the felony escalation theory; 
Whereas the jury instructions in the case were constitu-
tionally deficient and legally flawed by allowing for a non-
unanimous, or ‘‘4–4–4’’ verdict on the uncharged con-
duct, despite the clear command of the Supreme Court 
that the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments ‘‘require[] a 
unanimous verdict to convict a defendant of a serious of-
fense,’’ in Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. 83 (2020); 
Whereas the verdict form returned in the case did not even 
ask for the specificity of jury findings of the various un-
charged conduct theories found in the case, denying the 
former President his right to fair notice and confronta-
tion; 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
01:13 Jun 22, 2024
Jkt 049200
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6300
E:\BILLS\HR1315.IH
HR1315
ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
•HRES 1315 IH 
Whereas the conviction was obtained in part through the tes-
timony of a discredited witness with a personal animus 
toward former President Trump, admitted felon and dis-
barred attorney Michael D. Cohen; 
Whereas the conviction was obtained in part through the 
entry of other highly prejudicial and immaterial testi-
mony and evidence that never should have been admitted; 
Whereas former President Trump is the presumptive Repub-
lican nominee for President of the United States, the 
highest office in the Nation, and the occupant of which 
is a matter of utmost public importance; 
Whereas the Republican Convention to nominate a Presi-
dential candidate is on July 11, 2024, and the Presi-
dential election is November 5, 2024; 
Whereas the felony conviction of a presumptive major party 
nominee for President can cause confusion for candidate 
ballot access, depending on State law and despite the 
opinion of the Supreme Court in Trump v. Anderson, No. 
23–719 (2023) (reversing the removal of Donald Trump 
from Colorado’s Republican primary ballot); 
Whereas the politically motivated prosecution and conviction 
draws into question the integrity of Federal Presidential 
elections, of which the government ‘‘indisputably has a 
compelling interest in preserving the integrity . . .’’Eu v. 
San Francisco County Democratic Central Comm., 489 
U. S. 214, 231 (1989); 
Whereas the bias of both the judge and prosecutor in this 
case, as well as the numerous procedural flaws, raises 
dire issues of judicial impartiality, the appearance of pro-
priety, and faith in the judicial system; 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
01:13 Jun 22, 2024
Jkt 049200
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6300
E:\BILLS\HR1315.IH
HR1315
ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
•HRES 1315 IH 
Whereas the ‘‘principles of equity’’ require speedy resolution 
of legal issues that could affect voter decision and infor-
mation at ‘‘a time sufficiently early to permit the holding 
of elections . . . without great difficulty’’, cf. Reynolds v. 
Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 585–86 (1964); 
Whereas the public interest is in final and Supreme disposi-
tion of the substantial questions of Federal law raised in 
the case; 
Whereas the Supreme Court has previously intervened in 
order to provide final and dispositive resolution as to 
questions of law and equity arising from essential and 
crucial Presidential electoral deadlines, e.g., Bush v. 
Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000); and 
Whereas under the All Writs Act (28 U.S.C. 1651) ‘‘the Su-
preme Court and all courts established by Act of Con-
gress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid 
of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the us-
ages and principles of law’’: Now, therefore, be it 
Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep-
resentatives that— 
(1) immediate resolution of these matters is 
necessary for the people of the United States to 
make informed decisions about the upcoming Presi-
dential election, would be necessary and appropriate 
in aid of the respective jurisdictions of the Federal 
courts, is demanded by the principles of equity, and 
is agreeable to the usages and principles of law; and 
(2) with all due deference to the respective co-
equal branches of government, that the Supreme 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
01:13 Jun 22, 2024
Jkt 049200
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR1315.IH
HR1315
ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS