WASHINGTON, DC, USA – The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday, January 10, 2025, denied President-elect Donald Trump’s emergency request to delay his sentencing in the New York hush money case, allowing the proceeding to go forward just days before his inauguration.
In a 5-4 decision, the court rejected Trump’s appeal, which argued that attending the sentencing would hinder his transition efforts and compromise national security.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the court’s three liberal justices in the majority.
Conservative justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh dissented.
Sentencing Set for Friday
The sentencing, scheduled for Friday at 9:30 a.m., will proceed virtually, with Trump participating from his Mar-a-Lago residence, according to sources familiar with the arrangements.
New York Judge Juan Merchan, who presided over Trump’s trial, has indicated that the president-elect will not face penalties or prison time.
In a brief statement, the Supreme Court noted that Trump’s concerns could be addressed through normal appeals.
The justices concluded that the burden imposed by the sentencing was “relatively insubstantial,” especially given the trial court’s intent not to impose punitive measures.
A Rare Intervention
Trump’s appeal to the Supreme Court marked an unusual step, as the justices rarely intervene in state criminal cases before the conclusion of state appeals.
Trump’s underlying challenge to his conviction is still pending, and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg argued that the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to consider the emergency request.
Trump was convicted in May of falsifying business records related to a $130,000 hush money payment made through his former attorney Michael Cohen to adult-film star Stormy Daniels.
The payment was intended to prevent Daniels from speaking publicly about an alleged affair with Trump before the 2016 election, a claim Trump has denied.
Immunity Argument Rejected
Trump has contended that his conviction should be overturned, citing a Supreme Court decision in July that grants former presidents broad immunity for official actions taken while in office.
Trump’s legal team argued that the trial included evidence related to his official conduct as president, which they claimed should have been barred under the court’s immunity ruling.
Prosecutors countered that the evidence did not pertain to Trump’s official duties, and Judge Merchan rejected Trump’s argument in December.
Burden on Transition Disputed
Trump’s attorneys told the court that the sentencing would interfere with critical preparations for his second term, including matters of national security.
“Defending criminal litigation at all stages – especially, as here, defending a criminal sentencing – is uniquely taxing and burdensome to a criminal defendant,” Trump’s lawyers wrote.
Prosecutors dismissed this claim, with Bragg arguing that the virtual sentencing, expected to last no more than an hour, posed no significant impediment to Trump’s duties.
“There is a compelling public interest in proceeding to sentencing,” Bragg said in a filing.
Ethics Controversy Over Alito
The court’s decision was overshadowed by an ethics controversy involving Justice Samuel Alito, who reportedly spoke with Trump by phone earlier this week.
The call, which Alito said was unrelated to the sentencing case, prompted calls from congressional Democrats for his recusal.
“Justice Alito’s decision to have a personal phone call with President Trump — who obviously has an active and deeply personal matter before the court — makes clear that he fundamentally misunderstands the basic requirements of judicial ethics,” said Maryland Rep. Jamie Raskin.
Alito defended his actions, stating that the conversation did not involve any matter pending before the court.
Next Steps
The sentencing marks a significant moment in the legal saga surrounding Trump as he prepares to assume the presidency on January 20.
While Trump’s legal team continues to pursue an appeal of his conviction, Friday’s hearing underscores the unique challenges of balancing legal accountability with the responsibilities of the highest office.
The case remains a flashpoint in the broader debate over presidential immunity and the intersection of legal and political accountability in American democracy.
