A New York judge has delayed sentencing former President Donald Trump for a third time, extending the legal battle stemming from his May conviction on 34 felony fraud counts. The decision reflects the complex interplay of constitutional arguments, political implications, and the looming inauguration of Trump for a second presidential term in January 2025.
Legal Background and Conviction
The charges against Trump arose from his alleged efforts to falsify business records, covering up reimbursements to his personal lawyer, Michael Cohen. These payments were tied to a $130,000 hush-money deal with adult film star Stormy Daniels, intended to suppress allegations of a sexual encounter during the 2016 presidential campaign. Prosecutors argued the payoff constituted election interference, keeping potentially damaging information from voters. Trump, maintaining his innocence, has dismissed the case as politically motivated and denied any relationship with Daniels.
In May, a New York jury convicted Trump, marking a significant legal setback. Sentencing was initially set for November 26, 2024. However, Justice Juan Merchan has repeatedly delayed the proceedings as Trump’s attorneys press for the conviction to be dismissed.
Arguments for Dismissal
Trump’s legal team is challenging the conviction on two primary grounds: presidential immunity and interference with his duties as president-elect. They cite a July U.S. Supreme Court ruling granting sitting presidents immunity from criminal prosecution for certain official acts, contending that this protection should extend to Trump’s case.
Todd Blanche, Trump’s attorney, called for an immediate dismissal, invoking the U.S. Constitution and the Presidential Transition Act. Blanche argued that the charges undermine the peaceful transfer of power and present unprecedented constitutional challenges.
Steven Cheung, Trump’s communications director, framed the delay as a victory, calling the case a “hoax” and emphasizing that it has been “fully stayed.”
Prosecutorial Response and Constitutional Implications
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who prosecuted the case, opposes dismissing the conviction but acknowledges the complex constitutional issues at play. In a strategic concession, Bragg suggested sentencing could be deferred until Trump completes his presidency in 2029. This suggestion underscores the difficulty of navigating legal precedents involving criminal charges against a sitting or incoming president.
The delays have created a high-stakes situation, with Merchan’s court facing mounting pressure as Trump’s inauguration on January 20, 2025, approaches. The judge has now paused all proceedings, awaiting arguments from both parties.
Next Steps and Deadlines
Justice Merchan has set a December timeline for the legal teams to submit their arguments. Trump’s lawyers must file their case for dismissal by December 2, with prosecutors expected to respond by December 9. After these deadlines, no further arguments will be accepted.
Merchan’s eventual decision will carry significant weight, setting potential legal precedents while influencing the political landscape. If sentencing is delayed until after Trump’s presidency, it will mark an extraordinary compromise between constitutional principles and the judiciary’s role in ensuring accountability.
Implications for Trump’s Presidency
The legal battle comes at a pivotal moment for Trump, who won the November 5 presidential election decisively, solidifying his influence in American politics. A delay in sentencing would likely bolster Trump’s narrative of being politically targeted, energizing his supporters while complicating efforts to hold him accountable.
As the court approaches a decision, the case underscores the tension between legal accountability and constitutional protections for the presidency. Justice Merchan’s ruling, expected after the December briefs, will have profound implications not only for Trump but also for the broader understanding of presidential immunity and the rule of law.
