Trump White House Archived, PDM 1.0 DEED, via Flickr, Cropped by Resist the Mainstream

On Wednesday, Judge Juan Merchant, who is overseeing former President Donald Trump's New York hush money case, denied Trump's bid to delay the case based on presidential immunity.

The request was declined on the grounds of being “untimely,” with Judge Merchant specifying that the motion did not persuade him to assess whether presidential immunity “precludes the introduction of evidence of purported official presidential acts in a criminal proceeding.”

Trump had requested that the trial be postponed until a Supreme Court ruling on his presidential immunity in a separate case, also requesting limitations on certain trial evidence tied to “official acts.”

“This Court finds that Defendant had myriad opportunities to raise the claim of presidential immunity well before March 7, 2024,” Judge Juan Merchant articulated. Defendant could have done so in his omnibus motions on September 29, 2023, which were filed a mere six days before he briefed the same issue in his Federal Insurrection Matter and several months after he brought his motion for removal to federal court on May 4, 2023.”

The Supreme Court is set to review Trump’s petition to dismiss his federal election interference case in Washington, D.C., grounded on presidential immunity, with oral arguments planned for April 25.

Additionally, Merchant broadened the gag order against Trump following Trump’s criticisms of his daughter on social media platforms. This expansion, building upon the initial order issued on March 26, restricts Trump from making public statements about witnesses, prosecutors (excluding the district attorney), court staff, jurors, and their family members.

This case falls against a backdrop of several legal challenges faced by former President Donald Trump since leaving office, including investigations in Georgia related to election interference and in New York for financial dealings.

The hush money case, specifically, revolves around payments made to silence claims of extramarital affairs during the 2016 presidential campaign, raising questions about campaign finance violations and personal conduct.

The Supreme Court's decision to hear Trump's appeal on presidential immunity will not only impact this case but could also influence the scope of legal challenges against him, setting a significant legal precedent on the extent to which former presidents can be held accountable for actions taken before, during, or after their term.