Trump Seeks Dismissal of New York Hush Money Case, Citing Supreme Court Immunity Ruling

Former President Donald Trump has filed a motion to dismiss his criminal hush money case in New York, arguing that the trial was "tainted" by evidence and testimony that the Supreme Court's landmark ruling on presidential immunity now makes off-limits. Trump's lawyers claim 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."

Uncovering the Truth: Trump's Bid to Overturn Conviction

Challenging the Use of Official-Acts Evidence

Trump's lawyers argue that the use of official-acts evidence, such as testimony from former White House Communications Director Hope Hicks, was a "structural error under the federal Constitution" that tainted the grand jury proceedings and the trial. They claim that Hicks' testimony, which recounted her interactions with Trump in 2018 when the Stormy Daniels story broke, was "categorically inadmissible" because she was advising the president on his official communications.

Tweets as Official Communications

The defense team also argues that Trump's tweets, 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 they "fall well within the core authority of the Nation's Chief Executive."

Assessing Trump's Motives

Trump's lawyers contend that the Manhattan district attorney's case theory required jurors to assess Trump's motive for his actions while serving as president, which the Supreme Court's ruling prohibited. They argue that the case overall presents an "affront to, among other things, core constitutional interests central to the functioning of the federal government" and that the appropriate remedy is dismissal.

Seeking Dismissal and Vacating Conviction

In their 52-page filing, Trump's lawyers have asked a New York judge to dismiss the criminal hush money case and vacate his conviction on 34 felony counts. They argue that the Supreme Court's immunity ruling has significant implications for the New York case, which largely centers on Trump's conduct as a presidential candidate to suppress negative information ahead of the 2016 election.

Delaying Sentencing and Awaiting Response

The judge in the case, Juan Merchan, has opted to delay Trump's sentencing, which was originally scheduled for July 11, until September 18 to consider the implications of the Supreme Court's ruling. The Manhattan district attorney's office has been given until July 24 to respond to the filing, but has not yet commented on the matter.

Broader Implications and Legal Experts' Perspectives

Trump's lawyers have used the Supreme Court's immunity ruling to attempt to delay and potentially throw out both the New York case and a federal case in Florida for allegedly retaining classified documents following his presidency. However, 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.