The U.S. Supreme Court has officially declined President-elect Donald Trump’s request to postpone his sentencing in the New York hush-money case, which is set for Friday. This development comes amid a highly contentious legal landscape surrounding the former president.
In its decision, the Supreme Court noted that Trump can pursue appeals regarding the verdict and assessed that “the burden that sentencing will impose on the President-Elect’s responsibilities is relatively insubstantial,” particularly since the trial judge indicated his intent to impose an ‘unconditional discharge’ following a brief virtual hearing.
Notably, conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh favored granting Trump a reprieve representing a stark division within the Court.
This decision essentially eliminates the final legal option Trump had to delay sentencing, which is now poised to occur just ten days before his anticipated second inauguration.
In May, a Manhattan jury convicted Trump on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in relation to payments made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels. This particular case not only marks a significant chapter in Trump’s legal problems but also makes him the first former or potential U.S. president to face such charges.
Judge Juan Merchan has expressed plans to impose an unconditional discharge, thereby sparing Trump from imprisonment, probation, or fines. However, the conviction will remain as part of his record.
Trump has previously asserted that he is immune from prosecution and sentencing due to his status as president-elect, referencing a Supreme Court ruling that established broad immunity protections for sitting presidents.
In his appeal, Trump’s legal team argued that immediate action was necessary to prevent substantial harm to the presidency and federal government operations stemming from ongoing legal proceedings. Conversely, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg contended that moving forward with sentencing prior to inauguration is vital for maintaining the integrity of the jury’s verdict and upholding the law.
Bragg emphasized that delaying the proceedings could lead to an extended timeline for resolution, potentially deferring the case until after Trump completes his second term in office, which would be viewed as inequitable given Trump’s multiple requests for postponements.
Merchan has previously postponed sentencing on several occasions to mitigate perceptions of political bias leading up to the 2024 election, ultimately rejecting claims made regarding presidential immunity.
Trump’s legal representatives continue to allege that Bragg’s actions are politically motivated, insisting that the examination of Trump’s immunity claims should be assessed by higher courts.
As sentencing approaches, Trump is anticipated to appear virtually but retains the option for an in-person appearance. Additionally, he has attempted, though unsuccessfully, to appeal a standing gag order that restricts him from discussing the case or the parties involved until after sentencing.
