NEW YORK—Judge Juan Merchan, who is presiding over the case of People v. Trump, Ind No. 71543/23 announced on July 2, that the sentencing date for former President Donald J. Trump has been postponed.

Judge Merchan ruled that he would issue the court’s decision on the immunity case on September 6, and sentencing if necessary will be held on September 18, at 10:00 a.m.

“Although we believe the defendant’s arguments to be without merit, we do not oppose his request for leave to file and his putative request do adjourn sentencing pending determination of his motion,” Judge Merchan stated.

Trump attorney’s filed a request to delay sentencing on July 1, following the Supreme Court’s ruling that grants immunity to a sitting President when acting in their official capacity.

Presidential immunity is not new. The U.S. Constitution allows for it. This would protect sitting and future Presidents from being persecuted over decisions made in their official capacity while in office.

President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute. As for his remaining official actions, he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity. Pp. 5–15. (1) Article II of the Constitution vests “executive Power” in “a President of the United States of America.”

The following information came directly from the Supreme Court’s webpage listed under recent opinions:

Trump v. United States (23-939)
The nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority; he is also entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts; there is no immunity for unofficial acts.


Fischer v. United States (23-5572)
To prove a violation of 18 U. S. C. §1512(c)(2)—a provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act—the Government must establish that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or other things used in an official proceeding, or attempted to do so.


In an official letter to the Honorary Judge Juan M. Merchan from Manhattan District Attorney, Alvin Bragg dated July 2, 2024, Bragg wrote the following letter regarding the case of The People v. Trump, District Attorney, Alvin Bragg did not object to the requested delay.

“We are in receipt of defendant’s pre-motion letter dated July 1, 2024, seeking leave to file a motion to set aside the predict pursuant to CPL § 330.30(1) based upon the Supreme Court’s July 1, 2024, decision in Trump v. United States, 2024 WL 3237603. In that letter, defendant requested until July 10, 2024 to submit a memorandum of law in support of such motion. While defendant’s letter states that he does “not object to an adjournment of the July 11, 2024, sentencing date,” his request to file moving papers on July 10 is necessarily a request to adjourn the sentencing hearing currently scheduled for July 11, 2024, pending resolution of the motion.

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. We respectfully request a deadline of July 24, 2024—two weeks after defendant’s requested deadline—to file and serve a response.”