Judge Juan Merchan’s 11th-hour freeze of the hush money case against President Trump signals that District Attorney Alvin Bragg is not blind to the enormity of the issue presented by Trump’s triumph at the polls.

The judge had vowed to determine by Tuesday whether the Supreme Court’s grant of presumptive immunity for official presidential acts ought to disturb the 34 convictions against the 45th president brought in by a New York City jury. Judge Merchan had set a date of November 26 to sentence Trump for those convictions. That punishment could amount to years behind bars.

Now, though, Mr. Bragg has, in a surprise move, agreed to Judge Merchan freezing the case until November 19 following a renewed effort from Trump’s legal team to vacate those charges. Newly public court records disclose that both Trump and Mr. Bragg concurred that a delay is desirable in the wake of Trump’s electoral victory last week. Judge Merchan assented. 

Trump’s team cites the delay secured from Judge Tanya Chutkan by Special Counsel Jack Smith at the District of Columbia. Trump’s lawyers venture that the special counsel is “reportedly considering dismissing” his cases related to the storage of documents at Mar-a-Lago and election interference. The former president’s attorneys maintain that dismissal “is warranted here.”

The president-elect’s case for dismissal cites two precedents. The first is Trump, whose ruling not only granted official acts presumptive immunity but also limited the kinds of evidence that could be marshaled against a former president. The second is the Presidential Transition Act of 1963. Trump appears to be arguing that a prison sentence would throw a wrench into his ability to move into the White House. 

One of Trump’s attorneys, Emil Bove, wrote to Judge Merchan that a delay — and ultimately, a dismissal — “are necessary to avoid unconstitutional impediments to President Trump’s ability to govern.” The Constitution ordains that the president “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” That informs the Department of Justice policy against prosecuting a sitting president. 

While that practice does not bind a state prosecutor like Mr. Bragg, the district attorney’s office agreed that “these are unprecedented circumstances and that the arguments raised by defense … require careful consideration.” That amounts to something like a volte face from Mr. Bragg, who in an earlier phase of the case contended that immunity was immaterial to the payments to an adult film star, Stormy Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford.

Mr. Bragg could reckon that even if Judge Merchan pushes ahead with a sentence, the Supreme Court could intervene to defend what Justice Antonin Scalia called “the boldness of the president.” There has never been a state criminal prosecution of a sitting president, and now there could be two — Mr. Bragg’s and the racketeering case brought at Georgia’s Fulton County by District Attorney Fani Willis.     

Mr. Bragg’s chief deputy, Matthew Colangelo, wrote to Judge Merchan that the people are persuaded that a delay is necessary to assess the “impact on the proceedings from the results of the Presidential election.” Those results include Trump’s victory being certified on January 6 and his taking of the oath of office on January 20. Mr. Bragg has until November 19 to tell the court how — or if — the state wishes to proceed.

The correspondence from Mr. Bragg’s office suggests that the prosecution is less concerned by Trump — it has already defended the hush money payments as private and unofficial — than by Trump’s second presidential term. It is striking that the state did not urge Judge Merchan to stick to his original schedule, but instead agreed to reassess the viability of the verdicts.

One possibility is that Judge Merchan rules that the verdicts secured by Mr. Bragg are not nullified by immunity while also eschewing the prescription of a prison sentence. As soon as the judge sentences Trump, he can file an appeal like any other defendant convicted of a felony. That appeals process would unfold, though, while Trump serves his second term — if it is not paused until 2029. 

A spokesman for Trump, Steven Cheung, declared that it is “now abundantly clear that Americans want an immediate end to the weaponization of our justice system, including this case, which should have never been filed.”