The U.S. Supreme Court recently denied Donald Trump’s request to halt the sentencing hearing in his criminal hush-money case, which is scheduled for January 12, 2025. The 5-4 ruling was issued with minimal explanation, stating that any potential issues related to the trial could be addressed on appeal. The Court also noted that the burden of sentencing on Trump’s presidential responsibilities was minimal, given that the trial court had indicated a sentence of “unconditional discharge” after a brief virtual hearing.
Trump had argued that he should be immune from prosecution during the transition period between his presidency and his upcoming inauguration as the 47th President of the United States. His legal team contended that the immunity granted to a sitting president, as established in a previous Supreme Court ruling, should extend to the period following his election but before he assumes office. The argument was based on the notion that this immunity would shield him from criminal proceedings during the transition.
However, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who was appointed by Trump, sided with the Court’s liberal justices, rejecting the notion of “President-elect immunity.” This position aligns with that of other courts, including New York’s appellate courts, which had previously dismissed Trump’s claim. The Manhattan District Attorney’s Office opposed the immunity claim, arguing that it was unprecedented and unsupported by any legal precedent. They warned that granting such immunity would set a dangerous precedent and conflict with the Court’s own rulings, which affirm that presidential immunity applies only during the time a president is in office.
Despite the Supreme Court’s refusal to intervene, the impact on Trump’s sentencing is likely to be minimal. The trial judge, Justice Juan Merchan, had already indicated that he would not impose a sentence of incarceration, acknowledging that a sentence of “unconditional discharge” was more appropriate. Additionally, Merchan had allowed Trump to attend the hearing remotely, recognizing the demands of the presidential transition period.
The case revolves around Trump’s conviction on 34 felony counts related to payments made to silence allegations of an affair with adult film star Stormy Daniels. The payments were made in the lead-up to the 2016 presidential election, and Trump’s legal team had argued that the charges were politically motivated. Despite the ongoing legal challenges, it seems unlikely that the outcome of this case will significantly affect Trump’s ability to take office in 2025.
