Supreme Court Denies Trump’s Last-Ditch Effort to Postpone Sentencing
The United States Supreme Court has turned down former President Donald Trump’s urgent request to delay his sentencing related to the hush-money case.
Court’s Decision on Sentencing
Trump had appealed to the highest court, arguing that he deserved an automatic stay of his sentencing. However, the justices ruled against him with a narrow 5-4 decision. The former president was convicted of manipulating records in order to conceal reimbursements for a $130,000 payment made in 2016 to adult film actress Stormy Daniels, which was falsely categorized as legal fees.
Judge Juan Merchan, who is presiding over this case, recently indicated that he would not be considering imprisonment as part of Trump’s sentence.
Justices’ Composition and Rationale
Interestingly, two conservative justices—John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett—joined their three liberal counterparts in this majority ruling. Prior attempts by Trump at lower New York courts were also dismissed before the Supreme Court ultimately decided on Thursday evening that sentencing would proceed without further delays.
The justices expressed confidence that any issues raised by Trump could be adequately addressed during an appeal process. They noted that attending a sentencing hearing posed “insubstantial” burdens on him.
Legal Arguments and Public Interest
Trump’s legal team had sought clarification from the Supreme Court regarding whether presidents-elect are immune from criminal prosecution. In response, Manhattan prosecutors urged the court to dismiss Trump’s petition outright, emphasizing a significant public interest in moving forward with sentencing and asserting there was no valid reason for judicial intervention at this stage.
After being found guilty by a jury in May 2024, Trump’s initial sentencing date was set for July; however, his attorneys successfully requested multiple postponements from Judge Merchan. Recently announced plans have set January 10 as the new date for sentencing—just days prior to when Trump is expected to take office again as president.
In recent days leading up to this decision, Trump’s lawyers filed numerous appeals aimed at delaying proceedings further but faced swift rejections from New York appellate courts. Ultimately culminating on Wednesday with their plea for Supreme Court intervention where they argued it was necessary “to prevent grave injustice and harm” concerning both presidential authority and federal operations.
Presidential Immunity Debate Continues
Last year marked a significant victory for Trump when the conservative majority of the Supreme Court ruled that sitting U.S. presidents enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution related to actions taken while in office—a ruling which effectively dismantled federal charges against him regarding alleged interference in the 2020 election results; charges he has consistently denied while pleading not guilty.
Since then, Trump’s legal representatives have attempted various arguments suggesting these protections should extend even into cases involving presidents-elect like himself facing criminal allegations within Manhattan jurisdiction.
Prosecutors countered these claims by stating there is no judicial precedent supporting such extraordinary immunity assertions made by Trump: “It is axiomatic that there is only one President at any given time,” they stated firmly within their brief submitted alongside other legal documents opposing Trump’s position.
Additionally, several former officials along with prominent legal scholars submitted an amicus brief advocating against allowing Trump’s efforts aimed at evading accountability through procedural maneuvers designed solely around preserving political stature rather than addressing substantive justice concerns surrounding his actions during both campaign periods leading up through current events unfolding today.