In a decision with sweeping implications, a New York judge is set to rule this week on whether President-elect Donald Trump’s conviction over hush money payments to an adult film actress will be overturned. The case brings the weighty question of presidential immunity back into focus after a recent Supreme Court decision limited prosecutorial reach into a president’s official acts.
Judge Juan Merchan, who will decide by Tuesday, faces two critical decisions: whether to overturn Trump’s conviction and whether to proceed with his sentencing, currently scheduled for November 26. With Trump’s inauguration on the horizon, legal experts predict a sentencing delay might be in order. This decision could clear the path for Trump to re-enter the White House without immediate legal entanglements, a significant outcome for his second term.
The U.S. Justice Department is also deliberating on the future of two federal cases tied to Trump, given its precedent against prosecuting sitting presidents. Meanwhile, a separate Georgia case lingers, involving allegations of state-level interference in the 2020 election.
Trump has consistently denied any wrongdoing, describing the four cases against him as politically motivated attempts to undermine his campaign. Following his November 5 victory, his legal team pushed for the hush money case to be dismissed, citing the Supreme Court’s recent immunity ruling. They argue that the evidence shown to the jury—which included social media posts and testimonies from former aides about White House events—shouldn’t have been admissible under the new immunity guidelines.
Prosecutors, however, argue that Trump’s actions were “wholly unofficial,” distancing the case from the Supreme Court’s decision, which does not protect a president’s private actions. Legal observers suggest that even if certain evidence is excluded, the case might still stand, leaving the jury’s decision intact.
If Merchan lets the conviction remain, Trump’s lawyers are expected to request a sentencing delay. While Trump faces up to four years in prison, experts speculate a lighter penalty could be likely, though a prison term remains on the table.
