Judge Juan M. Merchan of the New York Supreme Court has rejected a request by former President Donald Trump to delay the start of his hush-money trial until after the U.S. Supreme Court rules on the “scope of the presidential immunity doctrine.” This decision comes in a six-page ruling where Merchan expressed doubt about the sincerity and actual purpose behind Trump’s attempt to pause the trial, which was scheduled to begin in April 2024.
The judge found that Trump had waited too long to claim presidential immunity, not raising the defense until well past the 45 days provided by statute for such claims. Merchan’s ruling highlights that Trump did not raise the defense in his omnibus motion, in his motions in limine, or in his response to the People’s motions in limine, making the motion untimely.
The trial, related to a “hush money” payment made by an attorney for Trump to adult film star Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election, was initially set to begin on April 15, 2024. Trump’s request to delay the trial was made in response to his presidential immunity claim in another criminal case. However, Merchan noted that Trump had numerous opportunities to raise the claim of presidential immunity well before the motion was filed in March 2024. The judge also pointed out that the fact that Trump waited until just 17 days before the scheduled trial date of March 25, 2024, to file the motion raises questions about the sincerity and actual purpose of the motion.
Merchan’s decision to deny Trump’s motion to delay the trial is significant as it removes another potential pathway for Trump to avoid the upcoming criminal trial, which is set to become the first criminal trial of a former president. This ruling moves Trump’s hush money prosecution closer to reaching trial, despite Trump’s ongoing efforts to adjourn the schedule due to “prejudicial pretrial publicity”.
The rejection of Trump’s immunity claims as untimely by Judge Merchan underscores the legal challenges faced by Trump in his hush-money case and highlights the ongoing scrutiny of his actions and potential legal immunities as a former president. This decision also sets a precedent for how future cases involving former presidents and their potential immunity claims may be handled by the courts.
