WASHINGTON — On Thursday, the Supreme Court issued a narrow ruling denying President-elect Donald Trump’s request to postpone his New York hush-money case. This decision paves the way for Trump to face sentencing for felony charges, occurring just days before he resumes his presidential duties.
The court’s 5-4 ruling allows Judge Juan M. Merchan to proceed with sentencing Trump, who was convicted in a case that authorities allege involved a $130,000 payment to the pornographic actress Stormy Daniels aimed at silencing her assertions. Trump has persistently denied any involvement or misconduct regarding Daniels.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett sided with the court’s three liberal justices in rejecting the emergency motion. The majority opined that Trump’s sentencing would not severely hamper the transition of power, especially considering that Judge Merchan has suggested that he would refrain from imposing jail time, fines, or probation on Trump.
Trump’s legal team sought a delay in sentencing while appealing the ruling, but the majority concluded that these issues could still proceed through the normal appeals process. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh expressed a desire to pause sentencing, as indicated in the order.
Over the past year, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority has ruled favorably for Trump multiple times, including decisions that safeguarded his name on the ballot in relation to the 2021 Capitol riots and granted him immunity from prosecution concerning some presidential actions, which have implications for a pending election interference case.
In the New York case, Trump’s lawyers have contended that elements used in the trial contradicted a Supreme Court decision from last summer that afforded him wide-ranging immunity regarding decisions made during his time as president. They claimed that at the very least, sentencing should be postponed to ensure that the transition to his presidency remains undisturbed.
However, prosecutors countered this request, asserting there was insufficient reason for the Supreme Court to intervene in a state matter at this time. They argued that the logistical demands of an hour-long virtual hearing would not significantly disrupt Trump’s activities and that any delay could extend the sentencing far beyond the inauguration date of January 20, potentially leading to a prolonged postponement.
Trump’s legal representation appealed to the justices after a series of rejections from New York courts, including the state’s highest court, which denied requests to defer the sentencing. New York judges have determined that the felony convictions for falsifying business records were connected more to Trump’s personal endeavors rather than his official presidential duties. Daniels has publicly claimed to have had a sexual encounter with Trump in 2006, which he denies.
Trump’s defense characterized the case as politically driven, arguing that sentencing him at this moment would represent a serious injustice and could undermine the presidential transition process as Trump prepares for his return to office.
D. John Sauer, whom Trump has appointed to serve as the solicitor general—representing the administration before the Supreme Court—defended him in this case. Sauer also previously argued Trump’s position in a distinct criminal case concerning efforts to challenge the 2020 election results, which led to the Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity.
Defense lawyers referenced this immunity ruling in their argument that certain evidence from the hush money trial should not have been admissible, which includes testimonies from former White House staff and Trump’s social media activity while in office.
This recent decision comes on the heels of Justice Alito’s acknowledgment of a phone conversation with Trump, which occurred shortly before Trump’s legal team submitted their emergency motion. Although Alito insisted the discussion was limited to clerical matters, it has spurred calls for his recusal from related cases, notably from a prominent Democratic member of the House Judiciary Committee.
