The New York Times reported that the legal team of former President Donald Trump sent a letter on Monday, requesting authorization from acting Justice Juan Merchan to present a motion to reverse the guilty decision in the criminal case in New York.

The Supreme Court sent the letter shortly after its decision on Trump’s claim for presidential immunity. The Supreme Court, by a vote of 6-3, decided that presidents have no immunity for unofficial acts and complete immunity for official acts.

“We cannot use the evidence for those acts.”

The lower courts will decide what qualifies as an official act because the Supreme Court did not define it.

Trump posted a statement on Truth Social after the decision, saying, “HUGE WIN FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY.” I AM GLAD TO BE AMERICAN!”

The New York criminal case resulted in Trump’s conviction on all 34 felony counts of manipulating company records. The purportedly unlawful deeds transpired amid Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign. We anticipate that Merchan will impose a sentence in this case on July 11. Trump may spend four years behind bars.

Trump’s legal team argued in earlier court filings that his administration should have ignored several pieces of evidence used in the New York trial, such as his social media statements against his former lawyer Michael Cohen.

Before making any court documents, Merchan instituted a regulation requiring the defense and prosecution to send a one-page letter explaining their positions. Merchan said the policy made sure he wouldn’t get overwhelmed with paperwork.

If Merchan permits Trump’s team to file the motion, sending it in would probably postpone sentencing. Since there is no longer a deadline for filing post-trial motions, it is uncertain if Merchan will comply.

We anticipate making the letter public on Tuesday. The office of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg (D) will have a chance to reply to the request.

Trump’s lawyer, Will Scharf, told CNN that the current decision by the Supreme Court “certainly” affects the New York case. He contended that the prosecution’s case against Trump included a “significant number of official acts of the administration” as supporting documentation.

Scharf told the news site, “The Supreme Court made quite explicit that evidence of those acts cannot be utilized to try fundamentally private acts,” meaning acts that are presumptively free from prosecution and come under the president’s official responsibilities.

“We demand, at the very least, a fresh trial where those immune acts will not enter into evidence, as the Supreme Court directed today,” Scharf continued.