Trump’s New York Judge Delays Sentencing Following Supreme Court Immunity Ruling

NEW YORK, NEW YORK - MAY 30: Former U.S. President Donald Trump walks to speak to the media after being found guilty following his hush money trial at Manhattan Criminal Court on May 30, 2024 in New York City. The ... NEW YORK, NEW YORK - MAY 30: Former U.S. President Donald Trump walks to speak to the media after being found guilty following his hush money trial at Manhattan Criminal Court on May 30, 2024 in New York City. The former president was found guilty on all 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in the first of his criminal cases to go to trial. Trump has now become the first former U.S. president to be convicted of felony crimes. (Photo by Seth Wenig-Pool/Getty Images) MORE LESS
Start your day with TPM.
Sign up for the Morning Memo newsletter

Judge Juan Merchan on Tuesday moved former President Donald Trump’s sentencing in the hush money case to Sep. 18, 2024, allowing him to hear arguments from Trump’s lawyers about how the Monday immunity ruling should impact Trump’s conviction.

The sentencing is now less than two months before the 2024 elections.

The move comes shortly after prosecutors from the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office agreed on Tuesday with a request from Trump to postpone his criminal sentencing. Trump’s lawyers on Monday asked that the judge entertain arguments that the Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity might have bearing on his conviction in the hush money trial, which took place earlier this year.

Sentencing was previously scheduled for July 11, 2024. 

“Although we believe defendant’s arguments to be without merit, we do not oppose his request for leave to file and his putative request to adjourn sentencing pending determination of his motion,” Joshua Steinglass, an assistant district attorneys who worked the case, wrote.

In May, Trump was convicted of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in the New York hush money trial, making him the first former president in American history to be convicted of a felony.

On Monday, in a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that presidents get criminal immunity for a wide range of acts they took as president. The decision also found that prosecutors can’t cite evidence involving official acts at trial to prove allegations. Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote for the majority, did distinguish unofficial acts, writing “there is no immunity for unofficial acts.” In the decision’s review of Trump’s January 6 indictment, however, Roberts did not identify any acts that he believed were clearly unofficial, while he found several that he suggested may be official. 

It’s a decision that will undoubtedly have sweeping implications for the indictments Trump is named in, especially those focused on accountability for his actions related to efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

The Manhattan hush money trial was not centered on Trump’s presidency but rather on his actions while he was running for president in 2016. Part of the conduct covered by the trial, however, did take place after Trump was in the White House. 

The Trump team argued — shortly after the Supreme Court opinion — that the prosecutors built their case partly on evidence from the former president’s time at the White House.

In a letter to Judge Merchan, Trump’s lawyers argued that his conviction must be thrown out based on the Court’s decision, asking him to postpone the sentencing while he reconsidered the results of that trial.

Latest News

Notable Replies

  1. Avatar for jinnj jinnj says:

    No appeal can be made until a sentence is rendered … correct?
    So process goes in to limbo - ?

    Still convicted of FELONIES - and sentencing pending …

    GOP will nominate a convicted Felon - unless Trump can somehow get Federal judge to bulldoze into the whole process on an “emergency” basis & invoke Federal supremacy over state jurisdiction - and justify overriding conventional process - for “imperial President” reasons

  2. Sentencing is a formality. To apply the current ruling I think would be ex post facto.

  3. Speaking of Crime, Paul Krugman recently wrote an informative article.

    Schedules being what they are, this column was written before the first Biden-Trump debate. So if you’re looking for savvy takes on the effectiveness of various strategies and tactics, you’re in the wrong place.

    It seems safe to predict, however, that Donald Trump — a felon who has been found civilly liable for sexual abuse and defamation — will try to make a good bit of the debate about crime. It also seems safe to predict that almost everything he says about crime (and other subjects, like the economy) will be deeply misleading, if not outright lies, despite the prospect of real-time and post hoc fact-checking.

    After all, Trump and his allies have spent months falsely portraying America as a nation terrorized by a wave of violent crime, pointing the finger at migrants and claiming that President Biden is responsible.

    Here’s what actually happened: We experienced a substantial rise in homicides in 2020 during the Covid-19 pandemic, when Trump was in the White House. After Biden took his place, the homicide rate first plateaued, then began a steep decline that seems to be continuing. Murders, in particular, dropped rapidly in 2023 and seem to have plunged further this year. It seems quite likely that the homicide rate in 2024 will turn out to be lower than it was in any year of the Trump presidency.

    Or to put it another way, if you want to play this by MAGA rules, under which the president is held responsible for national crime rates on his watch, then you’d have to say that Biden ended the Trump crime wave.

    Prominent Trump supporters are, of course, insisting that the good news on crime is fake. But while there is some room for debate in defining what constitutes a violent crime, a murder is a murder, which is why I focus on homicide numbers. And national crime data is assembled from reports by many police departments; are they all involved in a deep-state conspiracy?

    The truth is that the recent history of crime in America is a highly encouraging story. The social disruption caused by the pandemic caused a temporary jump in violent crime, but our society quickly regained its equilibrium, and our cities are probably as safe as they have ever been.

    Still, you may say, never mind facts, which have a well-known liberal bias. What about feelings? Aren’t Americans living in constant fear of crime?

    No, they aren’t. People may tell pollsters that they believe crime is getting worse; they almost always do (crime plunged between the early 1990s and the mid-2010s, yet a majority of Americans consistently said it was rising). But if you look at how people behave, they act as if they’re feeling pretty safe these days.

    To see what I mean, consider an example of someone well known who claims to be feeling terrified. The other day, in a segment about border security, Maria Bartiromo, a Fox News host, declared, “I don’t walk anywhere anymore in New York City.” Maybe that’s really how she feels, in which case I feel sorry for her and all the experiences she’s missing. Contrary to what many people apparently believe, New York is not, in fact, an urban hellscape; I walk around the city all the time — including in neighborhoods that are home to large immigrant communities — and it’s a fairly cheerful place these days, whose sidewalks are full of other people doing the same.

    But don’t take my word for it. Cell phone data lets researchers track foot traffic in urban downtowns. As of last year, weekday traffic was still well below prepandemic levels, presumably reflecting fewer people commuting into downtown offices given the rise in remote and hybrid work. But weekend foot traffic, driven by people choosing to take advantage of urban amenities, had almost fully recovered — which wouldn’t be happening if shoppers, tourists and so on were terrified of crime. In fact, around this time last year, weekend foot traffic in Midtown Manhattan, where Fox News has its headquarters, was higher than it was before the pandemic.

    Trump might not concoct his own crime stats, but my guess is that in this campaign, he’ll never concede that violent crime has come way down, and he’ll continue to focus on a few widely publicized stories, examples of terrible crimes committed by migrants.

    Responding to such stories is delicate; nobody wants to minimize the horror of even one violent crime, whoever commits it. But if we’re going to smear whole groups of people for crimes committed by a few members of those groups, where do we stop? For what it’s worth, a new study by the right-leaning Cato Institute finds that in Texas, undocumented immigrants are less likely to be convicted of murder than the native-born. (It’s even less likely for legal immigrants.)

    The important thing to remember is that the decline in the violent crime rate is in fact a huge Biden-era success story. And the president probably deserves some credit for that success — among other things, the American Rescue Plan included a lot of aid to state and local governments, which may have encouraged additional spending on law enforcement. But no matter how you cut it, crime should be considered one of Biden’s strengths, not a weak point.

  4. Avatar for dont dont says:

    It’s obvious to me that because tRump signed the checks to Cohen while sitting in the Oval they were official acts.

  5. Fuck. That’s all I got.

Continue the discussion at

49 more replies


Avatar for system1 Avatar for lestatdelc Avatar for cyberry Avatar for srfromgr Avatar for cometboy Avatar for becca656 Avatar for losamigos Avatar for dont Avatar for mch Avatar for tecmage Avatar for donnyyoung Avatar for ifeveroheverawiztherewas Avatar for musgrove Avatar for grandpajoe Avatar for dangoodbar Avatar for claimsadjuster Avatar for jinnj Avatar for jonney_5 Avatar for demosthenes59 Avatar for moniker Avatar for txlawyer Avatar for old_guru Avatar for doncoolidge Avatar for classicguitarnj

Continue Discussion
Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Associate Editor:
Editor at Large:
General Counsel:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Associate Publisher:
Front End Developer:
Senior Designer: