Former President Donald Trump’s legal team has filed a motion to adjourn the trial related to hush money payments until after the Supreme Court rules on presidential immunity. The trial, set to begin on March 25, is facing a request from Trump’s attorneys to put it on hold. The motion argues that the trial should be adjourned pending the Supreme Court’s review of the scope of the presidential immunity doctrine in the case Trump v. United States, scheduled for April 25, 2024.
The trial in question stems from Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s charges against Trump for allegedly falsifying business records. Bragg indicted Trump on 34 counts in April, and the former president pleaded not guilty. Trump and his legal team had sought to have the case dismissed, but their request was denied by Judge Juan Merchan last month.
The charges against Trump are related to alleged hush money payments made during the 2016 presidential campaign. Federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York declined to charge Trump in 2019 for the payments made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels and former Playboy model Karen McDougal. The Federal Election Commission also closed its investigation into the matter in 2021.
The motion from Trump’s attorneys comes after the Supreme Court set April 25 to hear arguments on the issue of presidential immunity. A ruling on the matter is expected in late June. The Supreme Court’s decision to hear arguments on the issue has paused another trial related to election interference charges against Trump. By requesting the review of presidential immunity, Trump’s legal team argues that criminal prosecution of a president will become increasingly common and will overshadow their official acts.
According to the motion, Trump’s attorneys argue that future administrations could use the threat of criminal prosecution to influence and control a president’s decisions, leading to destructive cycles of recrimination. They claim that criminal prosecution imposes a greater personal vulnerability on the President than any civil penalty and could be used for acts that do not warrant such prosecution.
This is the second time this term that the Supreme Court will hear a case involving Trump, who is the presumed Republican presidential nominee. Last week, the Supreme Court unanimously sided with Trump in his challenge to Colorado’s attempt to remove him from the 2024 primary ballot. The court ruled in favor of Trump’s arguments, which will impact efforts in other states to remove him from their respective ballots.
In response to the ruling, Trump emphasized the importance of presidential immunity, stating that the presidency would be reduced to a ceremonial position without it. He argued that no president would be able to effectively function without complete and total immunity, putting the country at great risk.
Brooke Singman is a political correspondent and reporter for Digital, Channel, and FOX Business. She covers the latest updates from the 2024 campaign trail and provides exclusive interviews and political content.
