A New York judge has delayed a decision on whether Donald Trump’s hush-money conviction should be dismissed, putting off any ruling on his presidential immunity until prosecutors weigh their next move. The case, scheduled to wrap on Nov. 26, will likely see delays, extending a high-stakes legal battle into Trump’s incoming presidential term following his recent election win.
Justice Juan Merchan was expected to rule on Trump’s appeal for immunity based on a recent Supreme Court decision asserting presidents are shielded from prosecution for official acts. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office, however, requested more time to consider this unprecedented legal terrain, securing until Nov. 19 to formulate their response.
The case, already historic for marking the first conviction of a U.S. president—sitting or former—entangles allegations that Trump falsified business records to bury a scandal tied to a $130,000 payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels ahead of the 2016 election. Trump, who has pled not guilty, maintains the conviction should be vacated to prevent disruption to his presidential responsibilities, as argued by defense attorney Emil Bove.
For prosecutors, balancing the prosecution with Trump’s upcoming term presents a complex puzzle. The prosecution team, represented by Matthew Colangelo, underscored the conflicting priorities of progressing the case while respecting presidential office boundaries, acknowledging the “unprecedented circumstances.”
Meanwhile, Trump’s upcoming inauguration will mark the first time a convicted felon is sworn in as U.S. president, yet he still faces a web of legal battles. Accusations range across four cases, including two brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith over classified documents and Trump’s alleged attempts to overturn his 2020 loss. A Georgia state case lingers on similar grounds, tied to his efforts to influence state election results.
Trump has publicly decried all four cases as partisan maneuvers meant to sabotage his political career. “Americans demand an end to weaponized justice,” his spokesperson stated, echoing Trump’s position that these indictments serve as political interference rather than impartial justice.
For now, Bragg’s team insists that Trump’s hush-money case remains distinct, focusing solely on unofficial acts that fall outside the presidential immunity granted by the Supreme Court. But as prosecutors prepare for another potential delay in sentencing, the legal skirmishes around Trump’s return to the White House continue to stir sharp divides, raising questions on the boundaries of presidential immunity amid complex personal and political legacies.
