Title: Divided Supreme Court Rejects Trump‘s Plea to Postpone Sentencing in Hush Money Case
In a deeply divided decision, the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday declined the request of President-elect Donald Trump to postpone his sentencing in the "hush money" case in New York. The order paves the way for Judge Juan M. Merchan to impose a sentence on Friday, after Trump was convicted for what prosecutors called an attempt to hide a $130,000 payment to actress Stormy Daniels. Trump vehemently denies any wrongdoing or involvement with Daniels.
Trump’s attorneys argued that the trial evidence violated the Supreme Court’s ruling from last summer, which granted Trump broad immunity from prosecutions arising from acts committed while in office. They insisted that, at minimum, the sentence should be delayed while Trump resolves his appeals to avoid distraction during the presidential transition. However, prosecutors opposed this move, arguing that such extraordinary intervention by the court was unwarranted and would likely cause unnecessary delays.
The Supreme Court’s decision comes after appeals courts in New York refused to block the sentencing, including the state’s highest court on Thursday. Judges in New York have determined that the 34 criminal charges related to falsifying business records are tied to personal matters, not Trump’s official duties as president. Daniels claims she had a sexual encounter with Trump in 2006, which Trump denies.
Trump’s attorneys described the case as politically motivated and warned that sentencing him now would disrupt his preparations to return to the White House. Trump is represented by D. John Sauer, his choice to be the next U.S. Solicitor General. Sauer also argued in favor of Trump in a separate case regarding his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results, which led to the Supreme Court’s immunity opinion.
Defense lawyers cited this opinion to argue that certain evidence used against Trump in the "hush money" trial should have been protected by presidential immunity, including testimony from some White House aides and social media posts made while in office. The decision was made one day after Justice Samuel Alito acknowledged receiving a phone call from Trump the day before the president’s emergency motion was filed. However, Alito clarified that the call was about an employee and not about any current or future case.
Related reading