The Supreme Court voted 5-4 to reject President-elect Donald Trump’s request to pause his sentencing hearing related to his New York hush-money case.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett sided with the court’s three liberal justices to reject Trump’s request, according to the Associated Press. The majority did not rule on the merits of Trump’s argument, but said that the question could be decided through an appeal.
Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Clarence Thomas voted to delay the sentencing hearing.
Trump responded to the ruling on Thursday evening during a dinner with Republican governors at his Florida resort: “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.”
George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley said the Supreme Court’s ruling was predictable and, despite what the decision would suggest, may ultimately help Trump.
“There is an overriding preference among appellate judges for the finalizing of cases with sentencing so that the entire case can be reviewed,” Turley said on X explaining the decision.
JOIN THE MOVEMENT IN ’25 WITH 25% OFF DAILYWIRE+ ANNUAL MEMBERSHIPS WITH CODE DW25
“[I]n handing down this sentence, Judge Merchan will give Trump an even greater mandate. The New York case is the rawest form of lawfare and Alvin Bragg is its happiest warrior,” Turley said.
“The whole case can now work its way eventually back to the United States Supreme Court,” he added, suggesting that the court may then overturn the entire case.
Trump’s legal team filed a brief with the court on Wednesday asking the court to delay the Friday sentencing hearing, arguing that the sentencing would violate Trump’s presidential immunity.
“[T]he doctrine of sitting-President immunity shields [Trump] from criminal process during the brief but crucial period of Presidential transition, while he engages in the extraordinarily demanding task of preparing to assume the Executive power of the United States,” the filing said.
Trump’s legal team also argued that his conviction should be dismissed as some of the evidence used to convict him on 34 felony charges should not have been allowed in the court, as it constituted official acts he took as president.
“These included, without limitation, statements issued through his official Presidential Twitter account to the American people in 2018, statements to the press in official Presidential media appearances, documentary evidence reflecting official Presidential actions, and testimony of former White House employees regarding official actions taken by President Trump during his first term as President,” the filing said.
