On April 3, New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan denied a defense motion to adjourn the upcoming trial scheduled for April 15, and in his order, he referenced former President Donald Trump’s case before the Supreme Court as the “Federal Insurrection Matter.”
In his written decision, Justice Merchan noted, “Defendant fully briefed the issue of presidential immunity in his motion to dismiss the matter of United States v. Trump, US Dist Ct, DDC 23 CR 25, (hereinafter “Federal Insurrection Matter”) on October 5, 2023.”
Justice Merchan is presiding over one of four criminal cases against President Trump. This particular case is a state matter, where Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has charged President Trump with 34 counts of falsifying business records, alleging a scheme to influence the 2016 elections.
The other case under discussion charges President Trump with four counts of obstruction and conspiracy for his actions on Jan. 6, 2021, but it does not include allegations of insurrection in the indictment.
Special counsel Jack Smith is prosecuting the latter case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, and trial proceedings have been stayed as President Trump pursues an appeal on the grounds of presidential immunity.
Counsel for President Trump in the Manhattan case recently referenced the federal case, arguing for a delay in the trial. They pointed out that the presidential immunity they raised in state court will soon be under review by the U.S. Supreme Court.
On April 25, the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments on “whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.”
The defense of presidential immunity is a recurring theme in several of President Trump’s cases, leading to requests for additional hearings and delays in anticipation of a Supreme Court decision.
Regarding the use of “insurrection” in the order, it remains unclear why Justice Merchan employed this term as shorthand for the federal case. While the events of Jan. 6, 2021, have been colloquially referred to as an “insurrection,” the term does not appear directly in the indictment. There may have been a reference to “insurrection” in a quote, but it appears unrelated to the legal proceedings. It seems improbable that the judge confused the two cases, given the distinct legal arguments involved.
