WASHINGTON (Diya TV) — Former President Donald Trump’s hush money case faces new turbulence just a month after a New York jury convicted him. A recent Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity has given Trump’s legal team fresh ammunition to challenge the guilty verdict, delaying his sentencing initially scheduled for next week.

Judge Juan Merchan announced the postponement of the sentencing until September, noting it will proceed only “if such is still necessary.” This decision came swiftly, within 48 hours of the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling, which grants former presidents at least presumptive criminal immunity for all official acts. This development provides Trump a significant legal advantage in his ongoing criminal prosecutions, potentially allowing him to avoid trial on remaining charges before the November election.

In May, a New York jury found Trump guilty on all counts related to falsifying business records to hide a $130,000 hush money payment to porn actor Stormy Daniels in October 2016. Trump argues that some of the evidence used against him is now inadmissible under the new Supreme Court standard.

Chief Justice John Roberts, along with four other justices, ruled that official acts cannot be used as evidence even if the charges stem from unofficial conduct. Roberts emphasized that allowing prosecutors to probe official acts risks prejudicing the jury with their views on the president’s policies and performance. He did, however, allow that the public record could still be referenced to show that the President performed an official act.

Trump’s lawyers claim that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg improperly introduced various official acts as evidence, including Trump’s call records, social media posts, government ethics form, and key testimony from a close aide. They argue this evidence should never have been presented to the jury.

Among the contested evidence are social media posts from Trump’s presidency where he attacked Michael Cohen, the prosecution’s star witness. The Supreme Court’s decision noted that most of a President’s public communications are likely within official responsibilities. However, it also acknowledged contexts where the President might speak in an unofficial capacity, such as as a candidate or party leader.

Other evidence under scrutiny includes call records between Trump and Cohen while Trump was president, a government ethics form from 2018 referencing the hush money, and testimony from ex-adviser Hope Hicks. Hicks’s testimony could be particularly contentious if her conversations with Trump were considered official acts not generally accessible to the public.

The former president’s legal team has until July 10 to argue that the trial result cannot stand. Prosecutors deem these arguments “without merit” but did not object to the delay.

Earlier, Judge Merchan had dismissed the defense’s immunity claims as untimely when Trump attempted to raise them just before the trial. Trump had also previously waived the defense when he tried to move the case from state to federal court.

Despite the Supreme Court’s sweeping grant of immunity, experts like Cheryl Bader, a former federal prosecutor and law professor at Fordham University, believe falsified private business records to pay off a porn star do not fall within the scope of official presidential duties.

This ruling impacts all four of Trump’s criminal cases, introducing potential delays and complications. Trump’s legal team is now leveraging the ruling to challenge and possibly delay other cases, including federal and state election interference cases, and the case related to classified documents.

The Supreme Court ruling requires Judge Tanya Chutkan to determine if Trump’s alleged conduct in federal election interference was official or private. The justices limited her ability to probe Trump’s motives, adding another layer of complexity.

In the hush money case, Trump’s attorneys argue that the jury’s verdict should be invalidated due to inadmissible evidence. Legal experts, however, believe there is sufficient other evidence to uphold the conviction.