Supreme Court Allows Trump Sentencing in NY Hush Money Case
(Bloomberg) -- A divided US Supreme Court cleared the way for President-elect Donald Trump’s sentencing in his hush money criminal case, dealing him a setback as he prepares to begin his second term in office.
Most Read from Bloomberg
NYC Condo Owners May Bear Costs of Landmark Green Building Law
Ambitious High-Speed Rail Plans Advance in the Baltic Region
NYC’s Subway Violence Deters Drive to Bring Workers Back to Office
Voting 5-4, the justices on Thursday rejected Trump’s request to halt the New York sentencing as state appellate courts consider his claims of presidential immunity. The sentencing is set for 9:30 a.m. Friday.
In a one-page unsigned order, the court said Trump’s immunity arguments “can be addressed in the ordinary course on appeal.” The court also said the burden of the sentencing on Trump would be “relatively insubstantial” in light of the New York judge’s plan not to order prison time and to impose a sentence of “unconditional discharge.”
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the three liberal justices in the majority. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh dissented, without giving any explanation.
“I think it was actually a very good opinion for us because you saw what they said,” Trump told reporters minutes after the decision was released. “They invited the appeal, and the appeal is on the bigger issue. So we’ll see how it all works out. I think it will all work out well.”
The court rejected Trump even though six of the nine justices are Republican-appointed conservatives who backed him in July in a blockbuster presidential immunity case. Two justices Trump appointed – Gorsuch and Kavanaugh – sided with him Thursday. A third, Barrett, voted against him.
Trump argued in legal filings that allowing the sentencing to go forward would be a distraction to his presidential transition and undermine his standing as a world leader during his second term in office.
Trump has been fighting since November to wipe out the verdict in light of his election victory, arguing that the immunity from prosecution enjoyed by sitting presidents should be extended to him as president-elect. Trump also argues the trial was tainted by evidence that would have been barred under the Supreme Court’s new standard on presidential immunity from a landmark July ruling.
The 78-year-old incoming president can still appeal – and argue for immunity – in New York state courts. Ultimately, the case could return to the US Supreme Court for final resolution after New York’s appellate courts weigh in.
Falsifying Records
A Manhattan jury found Trump guilty of falsifying business records to conceal payments to an adult film star before the 2016 election. Trump is appealing two decisions rejecting his argument for vacating the verdict on presidential immunity grounds.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who brought the case against Trump, urged the Supreme Court to deny the stay. In a filing with the nation’s highest court before the ruling was handed down, the Democratic prosecutor said there was a “compelling public interest” in having the sentencing go forward.
A spokeswoman for Bragg declined to comment on the high court’s ruling.
Justice Juan Merchan, who oversaw the trial, ruled that a president-elect isn’t entitled to the sweeping immunity that a sitting president gets. Even so, the judge has said he won’t sentence Trump to any time behind bars due to his status.
With jail off the table, Merchan previously said that a sentence of an “unconditional discharge” was the most viable solution, meaning Trump would face no real penalty other than having the conviction remain on his record. In theory Trump could have faced as much as four years in prison.
Trump wants the verdict tossed out regardless to prevent the sentencing from tainting his presidential transition.
In his 41-page filing requesting the delay, Trump invoked the sweeping July 1 Supreme Court ruling that upended a separate criminal case against him on grounds of presidential immunity.
“This court should enter an immediate stay of further proceedings in the New York trial court to prevent grave injustice and harm to the institution of the presidency and the operations of the federal government,” Trump’s lawyers said in the filing dated Tuesday and released Wednesday.
The Supreme Court case is Trump v. New York, 24A666.
--With assistance from Stephanie Lai and Patricia Hurtado.
(Updates Trump reaction in fifth paragraph.)
Most Read from Bloomberg Businessweek
He Built Russia’s Biggest Tech Company. Now He’s Starting Over—Without Putin
The US Government Is Sitting on a Possible Solution to the Housing Crisis
Israel’s Wartime Farmers Are Relearning How to Plow Without GPS
©2025 Bloomberg L.P.
