In a dramatic turn of events, New York’s highest court refused to intervene in President-elect Donald Trump’s impending sentencing on Thursday, setting the stage for a high-stakes showdown at the U.S. Supreme Court. The decision clears the path for Trump’s sentencing in the hush money case to proceed on Friday, leaving the president-elect scrambling for a last-minute reprieve from the nation’s highest judicial body.
New York’s Rejection: No Relief for Trump
The New York Court of Appeals issued a terse order rejecting Trump’s request for a hearing, upholding previous rulings by Judge Juan M. Merchan and a mid-level appellate court that denied the postponement. Trump’s legal team had argued that the sentencing would disrupt the transition to his presidency, just weeks before his January 20 inauguration, and violate constitutional protections.
Trump’s attorneys contend that Merchan and the appellate court failed to grant an automatic pause required by the Constitution while Trump appeals his May conviction on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records.
Prosecutors, however, have countered that the sentencing—expected to take no more than an hour—could proceed without infringing on Trump’s responsibilities as President-elect.
Supreme Court Appeal in Play
Trump’s legal team filed an emergency motion with the U.S. Supreme Court late Wednesday, appealing to Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who oversees emergency cases from New York. The motion argues that the case involves significant constitutional questions, including Trump’s claim of immunity stemming from his time in office.
At the heart of Trump’s argument is last summer’s Supreme Court ruling granting broad immunity from prosecution for official acts taken during his presidency. His lawyers assert that evidence used in the Manhattan trial violated this precedent and that the sentencing should be delayed until the immunity issues are fully resolved.
Prosecutors have dismissed this claim, maintaining that Trump’s convictions pertain to personal matters unrelated to his presidential duties.
The Stakes for Trump
While Judge Merchan has indicated he will not impose jail time, fines, or probation, Trump’s lawyers argue that the felony conviction itself poses significant consequences. They claim it could undermine Trump’s ability to focus on his transition and lead to long-term reputational damage.
D. John Sauer, Trump’s attorney and his nominee for solicitor general, has described the case as politically motivated, calling the timing of the sentencing a “grave injustice.” Sauer emphasized the unprecedented nature of sentencing a sitting President-elect and warned of the potential fallout for Trump’s administration.
Prosecutors’ Stance: No Further Delays
Manhattan prosecutors argue that delaying the sentencing would set a dangerous precedent and create a prolonged delay that could stretch beyond Trump’s inauguration. They emphasize the compelling public interest in concluding the case, noting that the trial has already faced significant delays at Trump’s request.
“There is no constitutional or legal basis for granting Trump’s extraordinary request,” prosecutors wrote, adding that Trump’s claims fail to meet the standard required to pause the proceedings.
What Happens Next?
If Justice Sotomayor or the full Supreme Court declines to intervene, Trump will face sentencing on Friday as scheduled. Legal experts suggest that while Trump’s appeal raises intriguing constitutional questions, the high court may be reluctant to wade into a state criminal matter at this stage.
With the clock ticking, all eyes are on the Supreme Court’s decision—and the implications it could have not just for Trump’s legal battles but also for his historic return to the White House.