Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has requested that former President Donald Trump’s bid to dismiss his hush money case on presidential immunity grounds be denied.

Bragg’s request came in a court filing made public on Thursday, and he argued that the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision on presidential immunity does not apply to Trump's case, as the Washington Examiner reports.

Trump was convicted in May on counts of falsifying records related to a payment made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels.

Bragg Seeks to Uphold Conviction

Trump requested that the charges be dismissed after the Supreme Court issued its immunity decision at the end of its most recent term. The Supreme Court's ruling included a prohibition on using certain types of evidence involving a president’s official acts in criminal prosecutions.

Trump’s attorneys contended that evidence such as his exchanges with former aide Hope Hicks was improperly introduced at trial. They argued that these communications were protected by presidential immunity and should not have been considered.

Prosecutors Maintain Evidence Validity

Prosecutors countered that the Supreme Court’s decision did not pertain to Trump's case. They asserted that even if some evidence was protected by presidential immunity, the overwhelming amount of other evidence presented at trial justified the conviction.

“Contrary to defendant’s arguments, that decision has no bearing on this prosecution and would not support vacatur of the jury’s unanimous verdict (let alone dismissal of the indictment) even if its reasoning did apply here,” prosecutors wrote.

Supreme Court’s Decision Examined

The Supreme Court’s decision added a new dimension to the legal discourse surrounding presidential immunity. The ruling emphasized the limitations on using evidence related to a president's official acts in criminal cases.

Trump’s legal team seized upon this ruling, arguing that it undermined the validity of the evidence used against him in the hush money case. They highlighted specific pieces of evidence they claimed were improperly introduced, including the communications with Hicks.

Prosecutors Stand Firm

Despite these arguments, prosecutors maintained their stance that the verdict should remain intact. They pointed out that Trump's attorneys did not preserve the right to bring new immunity claims by failing to raise these arguments before the trial.

“Even if that decision required the exclusion of all of the evidence that defendant cites here, there would still need be no basis for disturbing the verdict because of the other overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt,” prosecutors wrote.

Judge Merchan’s Role

The decision on whether to throw out Trump’s guilty verdict now rests with Judge Juan Merchan, who will review the arguments presented by both sides and determine if the Supreme Court’s decision necessitates any changes to the verdict.

Judge Merchan is scheduled to make a ruling on this matter on Sept. 6. If he decides to uphold the verdict, he will then proceed to sentence Trump on Sept. 18.

The Hush Money Case Background

The hush money case centers on a payment made to Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election. Trump was accused of falsifying records to conceal this payment, which prosecutors argued was intended to silence Daniels and influence the election outcome.

The case has garnered significant attention due to its implications for presidential accountability and the scope of presidential immunity. Trump's conviction marked a pivotal moment in the ongoing legal battles he has faced since leaving office.

Legal Arguments and Implications

The legal arguments presented by Trump’s attorneys and the prosecutors highlight the complexities of applying presidential immunity to criminal cases. The outcome of this case could set a precedent for how such claims are handled in future prosecutions involving former presidents.

Trump’s defense team’s focus on the Supreme Court’s ruling underscores their strategy of leveraging recent legal decisions to challenge the validity of his conviction. Meanwhile, prosecutors’ emphasis on the abundance of evidence against Trump reflects their confidence in the integrity of the trial process.

Awaiting the Judge’s Decision

As the Sept. 6 decision date approaches, both sides await Judge Merchan’s ruling.

The outcome will not only impact Trump’s legal standing but also contribute to the broader discourse on presidential immunity and accountability.