NEW YORK — Lawyers for Donald Trump have asked a New York judge to overturn his conviction on 34 felony counts in the hush-money case, arguing that a recent Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity fundamentally undercuts the evidence used at trial.

The request, filed in Manhattan Supreme Court, is the first major attempt by Mr. Trump’s legal team to leverage the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling on presidential immunity to unwind a jury verdict already entered against him. It underscores how dramatically the Court’s decision has reshaped the legal terrain for criminal cases involving current and former presidents — and how uncertain the path forward has become, even after a conviction.

The immunity ruling at the center

At issue is the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. United States, which held that presidents enjoy absolute immunity for “core” constitutional functions, presumptive immunity for other official acts, and no immunity for purely private conduct. Crucially, the Court also ruled that prosecutors may not introduce evidence of official presidential acts at trial unless a judge first determines that the conduct is not protected.

Trump’s lawyers argue that this principle applies retroactively to his New York trial, which concluded before the Supreme Court clarified the boundaries of presidential immunity. They contend that prosecutors relied on testimony and documents tied to Mr. Trump’s time in the White House — material they say should never have reached the jury.

“This verdict cannot stand under the Supreme Court’s new framework,” defense lawyers wrote, asserting that the jury heard evidence that “squarely implicates official presidential acts.”

A conviction already on the books

In May, a Manhattan jury found Mr. Trump guilty on all 34 counts of falsifying business records, a class E felony under New York law. Prosecutors said he approved a scheme to disguise reimbursements for a $130,000 hush-money payment to Stormy Daniels as legal expenses, in order to conceal damaging information from voters ahead of the 2016 election.

The verdict marked the first time a former U.S. president had been convicted of a felony. At the time, it appeared to bring one of the many criminal cases facing Mr. Trump to a decisive close, even as others stalled.

But the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling, issued weeks later, has reopened questions many believed settled.

Focus on Hope Hicks and White House evidence

Central to the defense argument is testimony from Hope Hicks, a longtime Trump adviser who served as White House communications director. Ms. Hicks testified about conversations she had with Mr. Trump while he was president, including discussions about media fallout from the hush-money revelations.

Trump’s lawyers argue that those conversations were part of his official duties — managing communications as president — and therefore should be shielded by immunity. If the judge agrees, they say, the jury’s exposure to that testimony alone requires vacating the conviction.

Prosecutors counter that the conduct at issue — falsifying business records related to a private payoff — predates Mr. Trump’s presidency and is inherently personal, not official. Any references to his time in office, they argue, were incidental context, not proof of criminal acts.

“This was a case about a private scheme to influence an election,” a person familiar with the prosecution’s thinking said. “Presidential immunity does not rewrite history.”

A broader legal uncertainty

Legal experts say the dispute highlights how disruptive the Supreme Court’s decision has been, even beyond federal prosecutions. Although the New York case was brought by a state prosecutor and involves state law, the immunity ruling’s evidentiary limits could still apply, depending on how expansively judges interpret it.

“This is uncharted territory,” said Jennifer Rodgers, a former federal prosecutor and CNN legal analyst. “We’ve never had a situation where a jury verdict is being challenged because the Supreme Court changed the rules after the fact about what evidence could be shown.”

The judge overseeing the case must now decide whether the immunity ruling applies retroactively, and if so, whether any improper evidence was significant enough to taint the verdict.

Prison remains an open question

The legal maneuvering has revived a question that once seemed closer to resolution: Will Mr. Trump ever face prison time?

On paper, the answer remains yes. Each felony count carries a potential sentence, and in theory, the total exposure could amount to years behind bars. In practice, New York judges often impose probation or fines for nonviolent offenses, particularly for first-time offenders.

Yet the immunity ruling — combined with Mr. Trump’s current status as president — has clouded the outlook. Federal cases overseen by Jack Smith are effectively paused while Mr. Trump is in office, in line with longstanding Justice Department policy against prosecuting a sitting president. State cases now face new constitutional hurdles.

“There’s a growing gap between legal culpability and actual punishment,” said one former Justice Department official. “The evidence may be strong, but the path to incarceration is anything but.”

Delay as a strategy

Time itself may be Mr. Trump’s most powerful ally. Appeals can take years, and statutes of limitations continue to loom over conduct tied to the 2020 election. If Mr. Trump serves a full term through 2029, some potential charges could become legally or politically impractical to pursue.

Defense lawyers have consistently sought to slow proceedings, filing expansive motions and appeals at every stage. The immunity ruling has given that strategy new force, requiring judges to parse each act and each piece of evidence to determine whether it is official or private.

Accountability versus the presidency

The dispute has reignited a deeper debate about accountability at the highest levels of government. The Supreme Court said its ruling was designed to protect the presidency itself, not any individual officeholder, from politically motivated prosecutions.

Critics argue that the effect may be the opposite.

“In trying to shield the office, the Court may have made it nearly impossible to hold a president accountable for wrongdoing,” said Kathleen Clark, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis. “That’s a profound shift.”

Supporters of the ruling counter that criminalizing presidential decision-making could cripple the executive branch, inviting endless legal harassment from political opponents.

What comes next

The New York judge is expected to rule in the coming weeks on whether the conviction should be vacated, modified, or left intact. Any decision is almost certain to be appealed, potentially sending the case back into the appellate courts — and perhaps eventually to the Supreme Court itself.

Even if the conviction stands, sentencing could be delayed for months or longer. If it falls, the case would become a striking example of how swiftly the legal ground beneath American politics is shifting.

For now, one reality remains unchanged: the facts established at trial — the hush-money payment, the falsified records, the jury’s unanimous verdict — are part of the public record.

Whether they ever translate into a prison sentence is a question the courts, and the country, are still struggling to answer.