Supreme Court allows Trump to proceed with his New York criminal sentencing
EMERGENCY DOCKET
on January 9, 2025
at 8:30 pm
Trump claimed in a Wednesday filing that he was entitled to immunity against criminal proceedings as the president elect. (Katie Barlow).
A divided Supreme Court cleared the way on Thursday evening for President-elect Donald Trump to receive his criminal sentencing on Friday morning. Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch of the conservative justices of the Supreme Court, along with Brett Kavanaugh, indicated that they would have granted Trump’s request. Trump would have required five votes, meaning that Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, and the three liberal justices of the court voted to allow the sentencing proceeding. Trump wanted the sentencing to be delayed. He claimed that he was entitled to immunity as the president-elect. Moreover, he added, prosecutors improperly relied on evidence of his official acts – such as his posts on the social-media platform X, then known as Twitter – to obtain his convictions.
Merchan declined to put Trump’s sentencing on hold. He claimed that Trump was responsible for the delays. Trump should not now be able to avoid sentencing, he wrote, by asserting that the hearing will take place too close to the inauguration.
After a New York appeals court judge also rejected Trump’s request to block his sentencing, Trump came to the Supreme Court on Wednesday, asking the justices to intervene. Citing the Supreme Court’s July 2024 ruling in Trump v. United States, in which a majority of the justices held that former presidents have broad immunity from criminal prosecution for their conduct while in office, Trump contended that requiring him “to prepare for a criminal sentencing in a felony case while he is preparing to lead the free world as President of the United States in less than two weeks imposes an intolerable, unconstitutional burden on him that undermines these vital national interests.”
New York prosecutors urged the justices on Thursday morning to allow Trump’s sentencing to proceed as scheduled, telling them that there is no need for the justices to take “the extraordinary step of intervening” now. In its order denying Trump’s request to stop his sentencing the court explained that Trump’s complaints about the use of evidence based on his allegedly official actions could be addressed on an appeal. It also stated that “the burden sentencing would impose on President-Elect’s responsibilities was relatively insignificant in light of the court’s stated intention to impose a ‘unconditional’ discharge after a brief, virtual hearing.” In a press release, Alito insisted that he did not discuss Trump’s request with Trump or any other Supreme Court case. Jamie Raskin, a Democrat and ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee in Maryland, called on Alito on Thursday to recuse himself. “Impartial justice under the Constitution,” Raskin said in a statement, “demands that Justice Alito hold himself to the highest ethical standards and avoid even the appearance of impropriety.”
Alito did not address the recusal question, noting only that (along with Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh) he would have granted Trump’s request.
This article was originally published at Howe on the Court.
