Supreme Court refuses to block Trump ruling in New York hush money case

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected President-elect Donald Trump’s request to block criminal proceedings in his hush money case in New York, meaning a sentencing hearing scheduled for Friday can go ahead.

the decision In a 5-4 vote with four conservatives dissenting, it meant the conservative-majority court changed course after handing Trump two big victories last year. Trump is scheduled to return to the presidency on January 20.

The brief, unsigned order said the issues Trump wants to raise “may be addressed in the ordinary course of appeal.” The burden the sentence imposes on Trump is “relatively insubstantial,” the court added, because he will not receive any prison sentence.

The three liberal justices were in the majority with Chief Justice John Roberts and conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

Trump said he thought it was a “fair decision” and alluded to further steps he could take.

“We’re going to appeal anyway, just psychologically, because frankly it’s a shame,” Trump said in response to a question from a reporter at Mar-a-Lago, and then criticized the case against him.

While the appeal to delay the sentencing was rejected by the Supreme Court, the country’s highest court, Trump could still try to appeal the verdict.

He said he respected the court’s opinion.

“I’ll do my little thing tomorrow. You can have fun with your political opponent,” Trump said, trying to portray the judge as if he were overseeing a politically motivated case.

When reached for comment, a Trump spokesperson referred to the president-elect’s comments from Mar-a-Lago.

“For the good and sanctity of the Presidency, I will appeal this case and am confident that JUSTICE WILL PREVAIL,” Trump said in a post from Truth Social.

Trump’s lawyers said in court documents that if the Supreme Court did not intervene, the New York court would inflict “serious injustices and harm” on the presidency.

They argued that the case should not go forward because Trump was protected by presidential immunity, as the Supreme Court recognized in a failed last year about Trump’s prosecution for trying to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

The court ruled at the time that while actions taken by presidents in their personal capacity would not be protected, certain official acts taken by presidents are barred from criminal prosecution.

A New York Court of Appeals Judge rejected on tuesday to block Trump’s sentence.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg had urged the court not to intervene, saying in court papers that because the case is ongoing in lower courts, the judges do not have jurisdiction to consider Trump’s claim at this stage. . He added that there is a “compelling public interest” in allowing the sentencing to go forward following the jury’s guilty verdict.

Trump was convicted in May for falsifying records related to money her then-attorney Michael Cohen paid adult film star Stormy Daniels in the final days of the 2016 presidential election. Daniels testified that she had a sexual encounter with Trump in 2006, which which he has denied.

Trump’s lawyers argued that some evidence at trial focused on official actions he took in the White House and are protected by the recent Supreme Court ruling. They also took the unprecedented step of saying that an elected president should have the same protection from criminal prosecution as a sitting president.

Judge Juan Merchanwho presided over the trial, had postponed Trump’s initial sentencing date in the wake of the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling. But it later determined that Trump has no immunity until he is sworn in as president and instructed to Trump’s sentence on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records that will take place Friday morning.

Merchan made clear last week that the sentence would not include any prison time for Trump.

The Supreme Court has helped pave the way for Trump to regain office despite the many legal obstacles he has faced in recent years.

The immunity ruling dealt what turned out to be a fatal blow to the election interference prosecution, led by special prosecutor Jack Smith. in a separate ruling Last year, the court also ensured that states could not expel Trump from their elections under a constitutional provision that bars people who have “participated in the insurrection” from holding federal office.