Former President Donald Trump has asked a New York judge to dismiss his criminal hush money case and vacate his conviction on 34 felony counts by arguing the trial was “tainted” by evidence and testimony that the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling on presidential immunity now makes off-limits.
In a 52-page filing made public on the same day the former president was originally scheduled to be sentenced, Trump’s lawyers argued that prosecutors violated the Supreme Court’s immunity doctrine by using evidence related to official acts — including testimony from former White House aides– to fill “glaring holes in their case.”
“Because of the implications for the institution of the Presidency, the use of official-acts evidence was a structural error under the federal Constitution that tainted [the District Attorney’s] grand jury proceedings as well as the trial,” defense lawyers Todd Blanche and Emil Bove wrote.
Trump’s lawyers previewed their plan to request the verdict be tossed in a one-page letter to Judge Juan Merchan last week, and their motion today outlined their argument why the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling impacts the New York case, which largely centers on Trump’s conduct as a presidential candidate to suppress negative information ahead of the 2016 election.
Merchan opted to delay Trump’s sentencing — originally scheduled for July 11 — until Sept. 18 to consider the implications of the Supreme Court’s ruling.
Defense attorneys emphasized the importance of former White House Communications Director Hope Hicks’ testimony, including her recounting of interactions with Trump in 2018 when reporting about an alleged hush-money payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels broke, to demonstrate Trump’s knowledge of the payment and preference the story came out after the election.
Trump’s lawyers argued that Hicks’ testimony was “categorically inadmissible” because she was advising Trump on his official communications, and the Supreme Court’s ruling placed limits on the use of testimony from presidential advisors related to official acts.
Republican presidential candidate former President Donald Trump speaks at a campaign rally at Trump National Doral Miami, July 9, 2024, in Doral, Fla.
Rebecca Blackwell/AP
“This testimony concerned efforts by President Trump to work with Hicks to use the ‘long-recognized aspect of Presidential power’ known as the ‘bully pulpit’ to ‘persuade Americans, including by speaking forcefully or critically, in ways that the President believes would advance the public interest,'” the filing said.
Defense lawyers used a similar argument to argue that tweets from Trump — which prosecutors used to demonstrate an alleged “pressure campaign” to prevent former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen from cooperating with authorities in 2018 — were official communications protected by immunity because the posts “fall well within the core authority of the Nation’s Chief Executive.”
Trump’s lawyers also argued that the Manhattan District Attorney’s case theory required jurors to assess Trump’s motive to actions while serving as president — an inquiry that the Supreme Court prohibited in their ruling.
Defense lawyers argued that the case overall presents an “affront to, among other things, core constitutional interests central to the functioning of the federal government” that irreparably encroached on a president’s official actions.
“As a result, the harms caused by DANY’s course of action are irreparable. The appropriate remedy is dismissal,” defense lawyers wrote.
Trump’s lawyers have so far used the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling to attempt to delay — and eventually throw out — both the New York case and the former president’s federal case in Florida for allegedly retaining classified documents following his presidency.
Legal experts who previously spoke to ABC News about Trump’s application of presidential immunity in the New York case were skeptical of the relevance of the ruling, in part because the conduct largely relates to Trump’s private actions as a presidential candidate. A federal judge who denied Trump’s effort to remove the case to federal court in 2023 ruled that Trump’s alleged conduct was “purely a personal item” outside of Trump’s official duties.
“The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that the matter was purely a personal item of the President — a cover-up of an embarrassing event,” Judge Alvin Hellerstein wrote. “Hush money paid to an adult film star is not related to a President’s official acts. It does not reflect in any way the color of the President’s official duties.”
Former President Donald Trump has requested the dismissal of his hush money conviction following a recent Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity. The case stems from payments made to two women who claimed to have had affairs with Trump before he took office.
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled that a sitting president is not immune from criminal investigations or prosecutions. This ruling has opened the door for Trump to seek the dismissal of his conviction, which was related to campaign finance violations stemming from the hush money payments.
Trump’s legal team argues that the Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity should apply retroactively to his case, as the charges were brought while he was in office. They claim that the prosecution of a sitting president violates the Constitution’s separation of powers and undermines the presidency.
The hush money payments were made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels and former Playboy model Karen McDougal in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election. Trump’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen, pleaded guilty to orchestrating the payments and was sentenced to three years in prison.
Trump has consistently denied any wrongdoing in the case, claiming that the payments were made to protect his family from embarrassment and were not related to his campaign. However, prosecutors argued that the payments were made to influence the election and violated campaign finance laws.
The request for dismissal comes as Trump continues to face multiple legal challenges, including investigations into his business practices and tax returns. The outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for the future of presidential immunity and the ability of prosecutors to hold elected officials accountable for their actions.
It remains to be seen how the courts will ultimately rule on Trump’s request for dismissal, but one thing is clear: the issue of presidential immunity is likely to remain a hotly debated topic for years to come.
