WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court issued a narrowly split decision on Thursday, denying President-elect Donald Trump’s last attempt to delay his New York hush money case, which now paves the way for him to be sentenced for felony offenses just days before he resumes his presidential role.
With a 5-4 order, the Supreme Court has granted Judge Juan M. Merchan the authority to hand down a sentence on Friday for Trump, who was found guilty of trying to silence allegations concerning a $130,000 payment made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels. Trump has consistently denied any inappropriate relationship with Daniels and maintains he has committed no wrongdoing.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett sided with the court’s liberal justices in rejecting Trump’s emergency request. The majority determined that the upcoming sentencing would not impose an overwhelming burden during the presidential transition, especially as Judge Merchan has indicated that he will not impose jail time, fines, or probation on Trump.
The former president’s legal team sought to postpone the sentencing while they continue to appeal the verdict, but the justices ruled that such arguments could be addressed through the regular appeals process. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh, however, expressed the opinion that a delay in sentencing would have been appropriate.
Trump acknowledged the Supreme Court’s ruling, stating his intention to appeal, which may once again reach the high court. “I respect the court’s opinion — I think it was actually a very good opinion for us because you saw what they said, but they invited the appeal and the appeal is on the bigger issue. So, we’ll see how it works out,” he remarked during a gathering with Republican governors at his Florida resort.
This development marks a setback for Trump following several significant victories from the conservative-dominated court over the past year. The justices have consistently ruled in Trump’s favor, allowing him to remain on ballot despite the events of the January 6 Capitol attack and granting him immunity related to certain actions taken while he was president.
In their push to postpone the sentencing, Trump’s lawyers argued that a president-elect has immunity from criminal prosecution and claimed that some evidence used in the case contradicted a previous immunity ruling. They contended that, at the very least, the sentencing should be delayed to prevent distraction during the presidential transition.
Prosecutors opposed this request, suggesting there was no valid reason for the Supreme Court to intervene in a state matter. They contended that arguments made by Trump’s attorneys failed to demonstrate that a brief hearing would be significantly disruptive. Additionally, they cautioned that delaying the proceedings could push the resolution past January 20, when Trump would be inaugurated, resulting in ongoing delays throughout his term.
“We brought a case. A jury of ordinary New Yorkers returned 34 guilty verdicts,” stated Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg during an unrelated press conference. “Our primary role now is to honor that verdict and uphold the critical principle that the voice of the jury must prevail.”
Trump’s legal representatives escalated the matter to the Supreme Court after New York courts, including the state’s highest court, declined to postpone sentencing. The courts ruled that the felonies Trump was convicted of pertained to personal matters rather than his official duties as president. Daniels alleges she had a sexual encounter with Trump in 2006, which he denies.
The attorneys for Trump characterized the case as politically motivated, arguing that sentencing at this juncture would constitute an unjust act that jeopardizes the presidential transition as Trump prepares to reclaim the presidency.
D. John Sauer, who has been appointed by Trump as the solicitor general, represented him in front of the Supreme Court. Sauer previously argued in cases concerning Trump’s efforts to contest the results of the 2020 election, which led to the Supreme Court’s earlier ruling on presidential immunity.
Defense lawyers referenced that ruling when asserting that some evidence presented in the hush money trial should have been protected by presidential immunity, including testimonies from former White House staff and social media posts made during Trump’s presidential term.
This decision followed news that Justice Alito received a phone call from Trump the day before the emergency motion was filed with the Supreme Court. Alito clarified that the conversation revolved around a clerk and did not concern any legal cases. Nonetheless, the communication sparked calls for his recusal, including appeals from a leading Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee. Justices have personal discretion regarding recusal decisions, and Alito opted to participate in this case.
