In a landmark legal challenge, former President Donald Trump's attorneys have urged a judge to dismiss his criminal conviction by referencing a new Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity.

In a legal twist, Trump’s defense seeks to overturn a felony conviction through a Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity, as the Deseret News reports.

On Thursday, once slated as the day Donald Trump would hear his sentence in the infamous Manhattan "hush money" case, his legal team initiated a motion that could overturn his guilty verdict on all 34 felony counts. This move spotlighted a recent pivotal ruling by the Supreme Court regarding the scope of presidential immunity.

The motion claims that the evidence considered in Trump's conviction, related to his presidential actions, should render the case null and void under the new Supreme Court decision. This immunity ruling, passed by a 6-3 majority, has brought forth substantive arguments, notably concerning its impact on Trump’s circumstances.

Trump's Legal Strategy Amid Political Tensions

Trump’s conviction in May marked an unprecedented judicial event, as he became the first U.S. president convicted of a felony.

The charges stemmed from payments allegedly made to silence an adult film actress, an issue that his defense argues was unfairly tied to his official duties.

Following the Supreme Court decision, Trump's sentencing, initially set for the day the motion was filed, was postponed to Sept. 18.

This delay aligns closely with the political calendar, falling just after the Republican National Convention where Trump is expected to be nominated once again for the presidential race.

Dispute Over Evidence in Presidential Duties

The arguments presented by Trump’s defense, led by attorneys Todd Blanche and Emil Bove, focus on the assertion that Trump’s acts relevant to the case were performed in his capacity as president. They argue that such acts constitute presidential duties and therefore should be shielded by immunity.

Witness statements and social media posts that were part of the case have been cited by the defense as inappropriate, blurring the lines between personal actions and presidential duties -- an interpretation the Manhattan District Attorney, Alvin Bragg, and his team have vehemently contested.

Judicial Responses and Public Opinion

Views on the dismissal request remain mixed, from the courtroom to the court of public opinion. Judge Alvin Hellerstein, overseeing the case, has expressed strong reservations about the motion, pointing out that the payments were personal rather than official presidential actions.

“Hush money paid to an adult film star is not related to a president’s official acts," Hellerstein commented, outlining the fundamental disconnect between Trump’s claims and the nature of the allegations.

Whilst Trump’s defense has marked the prosecution’s use of evidence as a 'structural error' under constitutional standards, the counterarguments hinge on the personal nature of the incidents, thus disqualifying them from immunity protections.

Legal Experts Chime In

Legal scholars and practicing attorneys are closely monitoring the unfolding of this case, as it tests the boundaries of presidential immunity within the judicial system. The implications of this case could reach far beyond Trump, potentially setting precedents for how future presidents might be legally scrutinized post-office.

However, the defense's perspective -- that the jurisdictional grounds for the case are intrinsically flawed due to the misuse of presidential act evidence -- faces a challenging road ahead.

With the requirement for D.A. Alvin Bragg's office to respond by July 24, further legal arguments are anticipated as the case progresses towards the delayed sentencing date.

Countdown to a Resolution

This case represents a critical juncture not only for Donald Trump but also for the legal landscape concerning presidential accountability. As the date for the new sentencing approaches, all eyes will remain on the ongoing legal battle and its broader implications on the interpretation of presidential immunity.

Ultimately, the court's decision will serve as a cornerstone for future interpretations and applications of presidential immunity, especially in cases where personal actions intersect with official duties.