The United States Supreme Court has narrowly rejected Donald Trump’s bid to postpone his sentencing in a criminal hush money case, paving the way for the president-elect to be sentenced in New York on Friday morning.
Four of the nine justices—Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh—expressed their willingness to grant Trump’s request for a delay.
However, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee, sided with the court’s three liberal justices to deny the motion.
According to court filings, Trump plans to attend the sentencing virtually from his Mar-a-Lago residence.
Judge Juan Merchan has indicated his intention to impose an unconditional discharge, marking Trump’s record without imposing fines, probation, or imprisonment.
The decision aims to uphold the principle of presidential immunity and respect Trump’s ongoing transition to the presidency.
Trump had faced a potential four-year prison sentence following his conviction on 34 felony counts for falsifying business records related to a hush money payment made during the 2016 presidential campaign.
Judge Merchan condemned Trump’s actions as a “premeditated and continuous deception by the leader of the free world.”
Over the past week, Trump mounted four unsuccessful attempts to block the sentencing, asserting his immunity as president-elect.
These efforts were denied at every level, including by Judge Merchan, New York’s Appellate Division, the state’s Court of Appeals, and now the U.S. Supreme Court.
In a late Thursday filing, Trump’s legal team reiterated their claim that the president-elect is entitled to immunity from criminal proceedings.
“President Trump, the constitutional structure, and the nation are irreparably harmed by letting the sentencing go forward while there are no little to no harms in staying it,” argued Trump’s attorney, D. John Sauer, who Trump has nominated as solicitor general in his incoming administration.
Sauer emphasized that proceeding with sentencing would undermine Trump’s transition efforts and create legal complications as he assumes office.
Trump was found guilty in May on charges stemming from falsifying records to conceal a hush money payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels, an effort prosecutors claimed was meant to influence the 2016 election in Trump’s favour.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, whose office secured Trump’s conviction, reflected on the legal battle during a press conference Thursday.
“It’s where we are,” Bragg said. “We believe the sanctity of the jury verdict must be given primacy. The jury’s voice must not be rubbed out.”
Earlier that day, Bragg’s office filed a brief countering Trump’s request, arguing that his claim of immunity as president-elect was “utterly baseless.” The filing stated, “The President-elect is, by definition, not yet the President. The President-elect therefore does not perform any Article II functions under the Constitution, and there are no Article II functions that would be burdened by ordinary criminal process involving the President-elect.”
Bragg also urged the Supreme Court to deny Trump’s request, asserting, “Defendant now asks this Court to take the extraordinary step of intervening in a pending state criminal trial to prevent the scheduled sentencing from taking place — before final judgment has been entered by the trial court, and before any direct appellate review of defendant’s conviction. There is no basis for such intervention.”
Prosecutors stressed that delaying sentencing would only complicate the situation, noting that postponing until after Trump’s inauguration on January 20 would introduce new legal hurdles.
“It is axiomatic that there is only one President at a time,” Bragg’s office argued. “No judicial decision or guidance from the Department of Justice has ever recognized that the unique temporary immunity of the sitting President extends to the President-elect.”
The district attorney’s office emphasized the jury’s “overwhelming” evidence of Trump’s guilt and criticized his repeated delays in the case.
“And notwithstanding defendant’s past and upcoming service as President, his history, character, and condition — and especially his open disregard for the justice system — do not support dismissal,” prosecutors wrote.
They further argued that Trump’s conduct in court and delays leading to the January 10 sentencing date demonstrated an exaggerated portrayal of harm, insisting that the justice system must proceed without interference.
