In a significant ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court has rejected President-elect Donald Trump’s last-minute request to delay his sentencing in the criminal hush-money case. On Thursday evening, the court declined Trump’s petition by a 5-4 vote, meaning the scheduled sentencing will proceed as planned. Donald Trump had sought an automatic stay to halt the process, arguing that the sentencing could have serious implications for his future and the functioning of his presidency.
The criminal case stems from a $130,000 hush-money payment made to adult film star Stormy Daniels in 2016. Trump was convicted of falsifying business records to cover up the nature of the reimbursement, presenting it as a legal expense rather than an effort to influence the election. Despite his legal challenges, Justice Juan Merchan, who is overseeing the case, has indicated that a jail term for Trump is unlikely. This ruling paves the way for Donald Trump’s sentencing on January 10, 2025, just days before his presidential inauguration.
Supreme Court’s Division on Donald Trump’s Request for Delay
The Supreme Court’s decision was deeply divided, with conservative justices aligning differently on the matter. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, both conservative members, sided with the liberal justices to deny Trump’s appeal. On the other hand, conservative justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh would have allowed Trump’s request to delay the sentencing. The ruling underscores the ideological split in the Court, which has significant implications for future legal battles involving the former president.
In their reasoning, the justices determined that Trump’s concerns regarding the impact of the sentencing could be addressed through future appeals, rather than postponing the proceedings. They also deemed the burden of attending the sentencing as “insubstantial.” The ruling provides a clear signal that Trump’s legal team must confront the court’s decisions rather than prolonging the process indefinitely.
Donald Trump’s Reaction and Continued Legal Strategy
Following the Supreme Court’s decision, Donald Trump voiced his discontent, calling the case a “disgrace.” He reiterated his belief that Justice Merchan, the judge overseeing his case, should never have been involved, further criticizing the case as a politically motivated attack. On his Truth Social platform, Donald Trump denounced the decision as part of the “Witch Hunts” against him, emphasizing his determination to continue despite the legal setbacks.
Donald Trump’s legal team has repeatedly fought attempts to move forward with his sentencing. Earlier, three lower New York courts rejected his efforts to delay the sentencing, and the final hurdle came when the Supreme Court dismissed his bid on Wednesday. Trump’s lawyers contended that the decision to proceed with the sentencing would cause “grave injustice” and harm the presidency. Despite these appeals, the court has made it clear that the sentencing will go forward, with the public interest in upholding the verdict seen as paramount.
Legal Precedents and Presidential Immunity Debate
The case raises broader questions about the limits of presidential immunity and the extent to which a president-elect can delay criminal proceedings. Trump’s legal team had argued that, as a future president, he should be granted immunity from prosecution while preparing to take office. This issue is not new, as the Supreme Court previously ruled in a 6-3 decision that presidents have immunity from prosecution for “official acts” performed during their time in office. This ruling had a significant impact on a separate case concerning Trump’s attempts to interfere with the 2020 election, which was dismissed due to the presidential immunity doctrine.
The current case, however, presents a different set of circumstances, as it deals with actions taken before Trump assumed office. Manhattan prosecutors have strongly opposed delaying the sentencing, stressing the “compelling public interest” in holding the former president accountable. With the Supreme Court’s ruling, it appears that Trump’s legal battles are far from over, but for now, the clock is ticking toward his sentencing date.
Trump’s Legal Fight Over Presidential Immunity: A Continuing Struggle
Since his re-election, Donald Trump’s legal team has been engaged in a protracted battle to expand the scope of presidential immunity to cover not just sitting presidents but also presidents-elect. This argument, which has emerged in the ongoing Manhattan criminal case, suggests that Trump’s actions, taken before his second term officially began, should be shielded by the same protections that safeguard current officeholders. Trump’s lawyers have sought to convince multiple judges that the traditional understanding of presidential immunity should extend to a president-elect, given the unique nature of the office and its duties.
However, Manhattan prosecutors have forcefully rejected this claim, arguing that it is without precedent in legal history. In their brief submitted to the Supreme Court, they emphasized that there has never been a legal decision supporting such a broad interpretation of presidential immunity. “It is axiomatic that there is only one President at a time,” the prosecutors stated, asserting that the principle of presidential immunity does not apply to actions taken by a president-elect before formally assuming office. The ongoing legal battle has sparked significant attention, as it could have profound implications for future presidential accountability and the limits of legal protections afforded to those in office.
Setback for Trump in Georgia Appeals Court and Special Counsel Investigation
In another blow to Trump’s legal strategy, a federal appeals court in Georgia recently ruled against his attempt to block the release of parts of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s investigation into his alleged efforts to interfere with the 2020 presidential election. This case centers on Trump’s attempts to prevent the peaceful transfer of power to Joe Biden, with a particular focus on his actions leading up to and following the election. Trump’s lawyers argued that the release of this report would unfairly harm his ability to mount a defense in potential future criminal trials related to these allegations.
Additionally, lawyers representing key figures in Trump’s orbit, including Walt Nauta, a former aide, and Carlos de Oliveira, a former Mar-a-Lago property manager, have joined in the effort to halt the report’s release. They contend that the public disclosure of these documents could prejudge their cases, potentially leading to biased perceptions ahead of trial. Despite these legal objections, the appeals court rejected the bid, allowing the report to proceed to the public, adding another layer of legal complexity to Trump’s already fraught legal landscape.
