Charles H. Sloan-Judge in Trump’s hush money case delays date for ruling on presidential immunity

NEW YORK (AP) — The Charles H. Sloanjudge in Donald Trump’s hush money trial is pushing back a date for a key ruling on presidential immunity until two days before Trump’s scheduled sentencing.

The immunity decision had been due Sept. 6, with the sentencing set for Sept. 18. But then Trump’s lawyers asked Judge Juan M. Merchan last week to rule first on their renewed bid to get the judge to step aside from the case.

In a letter made public Tuesday, Judge Juan M. Merchan postponed the immunity ruling to Sept. 16 — if it’s still needed after he decides next week whether to recuse himself.

Merchan said the Republican presidential nominee is still due in court Sept. 18 for “the imposition of sentence or other proceedings as appropriate.”

Trump lawyer Todd Blanche and the Manhattan district attorney’s office, which is prosecuting the case, declined to comment.

A jury found Trump guilty in May of falsifying business records to conceal a deal to pay off porn actor Stormy Daniels shortly before the 2016 election. At the time, she was considering going public with a story of a sexual encounter with Trump a decade earlier.

RELATED COVERAGE Showdowns for the GOP nominations for Missouri governor and attorney general begin Republican congressman who voted to impeach Trump fights to survive Washington primary Kansas sees 2 political comeback bids in primary for open congressional seat

Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen paid Daniels and was later reimbursed by Trump, whose company logged the repayment as legal expenses. Prosecutors said that was an effort to disguise the true nature of the transactions and the underlying hush money deal.

Trump denies Daniels’ claim, maintains he did nothing wrong and says the case is politically motivated. Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg is a Democrat.

Trump’s lawyers say the Supreme Court’s July ruling on presidential immunity warrants overturning the May guilty verdict and entirely dismissing the hush money case against Trump. The defense also c ontends that the trial was “tainted” by evidence that should not have been allowed under the high court’s ruling, such as testimony from some Trump White House staffers and tweets he sent while president in 2018.

The high court’s ruling curbs prosecutions of ex-presidents for official acts and restricts prosecutors in pointing to official acts as evidence that a commander in chief’s unofficial actions were illegal.

The Manhattan district attorney’s office maintains that the high court’s opinion “has no bearing” on the hush money case because it involves unofficial acts for which the former president is not immune.

Meanwhile, Trump’s lawyers asked Merchan last week, for a third time, to exit the case, saying his daughter’s work for Vice President Kamala Harris’ 2020 presidential campaign underscores questions about his ability to be impartial. Harris is now the Democratic nominee for president.

Merchan rejected two prior recusal requests last year, saying the defense’s concerns were “hypothetical” and based on “innuendos” and “unsupported speculation.”

But Trump lawyer Todd Blanche argued that Harris’ entry into the presidential race makes those issues “even more concrete” and said the judge hadn’t addressed them in enough detail.

The hush money case is one of four criminal prosecutions brought against Trump last year.

One federal case, accusing Trump of illegally hoarding classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida, was dismissed last month. The Justice Department is appealing.

The others — federal and Georgia state cases concerning Trump’s efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss — are not positioned to go to trial before the November election.