President-elect Donald Trump’s attorneys argued on Nov. 19 that New York Justice Juan Merchan should dismiss the ongoing case against their client, arguing that doing so is required by federal law and the U.S. Constitution.

“Immediate dismissal of this case is mandated by the federal Constitution, the Presidential Transition Act of 1963, and the interests of justice, in order to facilitate the orderly transition of Executive power following President Trump’s overwhelming victory in the 2024 Presidential election,” Trump’s attorneys said in a letter that was published on the court’s website on Nov. 20.

The letter was the latest in a series of moves by Merchan and attorneys following the 2024 presidential election, which has thrown a wrench in Trump’s federal cases and cast serious doubt over whether Trump’s state-based cases can continue once he enters office.

Trump has asked Merchan to throw out the prosecution and guilty verdict he received in May. One of his primary arguments is that the concept of presidential immunity, as outlined by the Supreme Court this summer, means that the prosecution’s use of certain evidence and testimony was unconstitutional.

Merchan was expected to rule on Trump’s immunity arguments after the election but postponed a decision after a request for a stay in proceedings. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office said on Nov. 19 that it supported postponing sentencing, which had been scheduled for Nov. 26, but maintained that Trump’s arguments were incorrect.

The Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Trump v. United States established that presidents have varying levels of immunity from criminal prosecution.

Trump’s attorneys argued on Nov. 19 that “just as a sitting President is completely immune from any criminal process, so too is President Trump as President-elect.”

In arguing for dismissal, his attorneys pointed to the Presidential Transition Act of 1963, which states, “It is the intent of the Congress that all officers of the Government so conduct the affairs of the Government for which they exercise responsibility and authority as (1) to be mindful of problems occasioned by transitions in the office of President, (2) to take appropriate lawful steps to avoid or minimize disruptions that might be occasioned by the transfer of the executive power, and (3) otherwise to promote orderly transitions in the office of President.”

They also pointed to the same Department of Justice memo that the special counsel’s office cited when asked about the prospective dismissal of Trump’s federal cases.

That memo states that the “indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.”

In May, a jury found Trump guilty on 34 felony counts, raising the prospect that he could face prison time. Experts told The Epoch Times at the time that the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution would preclude Trump from serving prison time.

In his July response to the request to dismiss the indictment, Bragg argued that Trump had waited too long to raise some of his arguments about immunity. He also said a federal judge had deemed the conduct in question to be outside of a president’s official duties.

On Nov. 19, Bragg’s office argued that “no current law establishes that a president’s temporary immunity from prosecution requires dismissal of a post-trial criminal proceeding.”