New York City, New York – Former President Donald Trump’s legal team has submitted a request to the judge overseeing his hush money trial in New York, seeking to overturn his conviction and postpone his sentencing, currently set for next week. The request comes after the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a ruling, prompting Trump’s attorneys to ask for a delay in the sentencing process as they assess how the decision could impact the New York case.

In their letter to Judge Juan M. Merchan, Trump’s lawyers argued that the Supreme Court’s ruling supported their earlier stance that certain evidence presented by prosecutors, which they claimed involved official presidential acts, should not have been admissible. Trump had previously asserted immunity from prosecution for actions taken during his time in office. While this defense was not raised in the hush money case, his legal team contended that evidence related to his presidency, such as social media posts, should have been excluded due to immunity protections.

The Manhattan district attorney’s office did not offer a comment regarding the matter on Monday night. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court’s recent decision established that former presidents have significant immunity from prosecution, which has implications for Trump’s ongoing legal challenges, including the Washington criminal case alleging a plot to overturn the 2020 election results.

Trump was convicted on 34 counts of falsifying business records in New York related to a hush money payment made just before the 2016 election. His sentencing in this case is scheduled for July 11. Judge Merchan had implemented a procedure requiring both parties to summarize their arguments in a one-page letter ahead of longer court filings to streamline the process and manage the court docket efficiently.

Last year, a federal judge declined Trump’s request to transfer the case from state to federal court, ruling that the allegations centered on his personal matters and did not relate to his official presidential duties. The judge emphasized that the evidence pointed towards the incident being a personal issue for the President, rather than a reflection of his official responsibilities.