Washington A sentencing hearing set for Friday can proceed after the Supreme Court on Thursday denied President-elect Donald Trump’s request to halt criminal proceedings in his New York hush money case.
After giving Trump two significant victories last year, the conservative-majority court reversed its path with the 5-4 ruling and the dissenting opinion of four conservatives. Trump is scheduled to take office again on January 20.
According to the succinct, unsigned ruling, Trump’s concerns “can be addressed in the ordinary course on appeal.” Trump will not be given any prison time, thus the burden sentencing places on him is “relatively insubstantial,” the court continued.
Along with fellow conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Chief Justice John Roberts, the three liberal justices made up the majority.
Trump stated that he believed it to be a “fair decision” and hinted to potential future actions.
In answer to a reporter’s query at Mar-a-Lago, Trump stated, “We’re going to appeal anyway, just psychologically, because frankly it’s a disgrace,” and continued to attack the case against him.
Trump could still try to appeal the decision itself, even after the nation’s top court rejected the petition to postpone punishment.
“I respect the court’s opinion,” he stated.
“Tomorrow, I’ll do my little thing. Trump attempted to portray the judge as presiding over a politically motivated case when he said, “They can have fun with their political opponent.”
A Trump representative cited the president-elect’s remarks from Mar-a-Lago when contacted for comment.
Trump stated in a Truth Social post, “I will be appealing this case for the sake and sanctity of the Presidency, and I am confident that JUSTICE WILL PREVAIL.”
In court documents, Trump’s attorneys said that the New York court would seriously injure the president and cause serious injustice if the Supreme Court did not step in.
They contended that the case should not proceed because, as the Supreme Court acknowledged in its opinion last year regarding Trump’s prosecution for attempting to reverse the 2020 election results, Trump was shielded by presidential immunity.
At the time, the court decided that some official activities by presidents are criminally prosecutable, but that conduct made by presidents in their personal capacities would not be shielded.
On Tuesday, a judge in the New York appeals court rejected a request to stop Trump’s sentencing.
In court documents, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg urged the court to refrain from getting involved, stating that the justices lacked the authority to entertain Trump’s claim at this time because the case was still pending in lower courts. He went on to say that there is strong public support for allowing the punishment to proceed after the jury found the defendant guilty.
In May, Trump was found guilty of fabricating documents pertaining to hush money payments made to adult film star Stormy Daniels by his former lawyer, Michael Cohen, during the final days of the 2016 presidential campaign. Trump has refuted Daniels’ testimony that she had a sexual encounter with him in 2006.
Trump’s attorneys contended that certain information shown during the trial concerned official acts he conducted while in the White House that are shielded by the recent Supreme Court decision. Additionally, they made the historic claim that a president-elect ought to be shielded from criminal prosecution in the same way that a sitting president is.
Following the Supreme Court’s decision to grant immunity, trial judge Juan Merchan had delayed Trump’s first sentencing date. However, judge then concluded that Trump does not enjoy protection until he takes the oath of office as president and ordered that Trump’s sentencing on 34 charges of falsifying business documents be held on Friday morning.
Last week, Merchan made it apparent that Trump would not be receiving any jail time as part of the sentencing.
Despite the numerous legal challenges Trump has encountered in recent years, the Supreme Court has helped pave the way for his return to office.
The prosecution of election meddling, headed by special counsel Jack Smith, suffered a devastating blow when the immunity ruling was handed down. In a different decision last year, the court also made sure that states could not remove Trump from their ballots because of a constitutional clause that forbids insurgents from running for public office.