On Wednesday, Donald Trump’s legal team asked a federal appeals court to delay his sentencing while they argue for transferring his hush money case from state court to federal court. This latest request follows a federal judge’s rejection of Trump’s motion to move the case, as well as a scheduled sentencing date of September 18, 2024.
Trump’s attorneys contend that if the sentencing proceeds on the scheduled date, it could lead to Trump’s immediate incarceration, causing significant disruption to the upcoming election. They argue that this potential outcome would inflict irreparable harm before the appeals court has a chance to address the legal arguments for moving the case to federal court.
In their efforts, Trump’s legal team filed a motion to appeal the decision earlier on Wednesday. That evening, they submitted additional motions both to the federal judge and the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals, seeking a stay of the federal judge’s ruling until the appeals court can evaluate the merits of their argument to move the case to federal jurisdiction.
The case centers around Trump’s contention that some of his actions related to the hush money payments fall within his official powers and should be handled in federal court. This argument is supported by a recent Supreme Court decision granting immunity for certain conduct within a president’s official duties.
Prosecutors from the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office have opposed the request to shift the case to federal court. They argue that Trump’s appeal lacks merit and mischaracterizes the nature of the legal challenge. They also stress that delaying the sentencing is unjustified and urge the appeals court to proceed without postponing the case.
Moreover, prosecutors have suggested that even if the appeals court were to consider the request, it should wait for Judge Juan Merchan, who presided over the trial, to make a ruling on Trump’s motion to delay sentencing until after the election. This would ensure that the proceedings remain on track and that any potential delays are based on judicial decisions rather than procedural maneuvers.
