supreme court He narrowly denied President-elect Donald Trump’s last-ditch effort on Thursday to delay sentencing in the New York admissions case in which he was convicted of 34 felonies in May. Sentencing will now take place tomorrow, January 10th.
Trump was found guilty of falsifying business records to conceal payments he made to adult film star Stormy Daniels ahead of the 2016 presidential election. As Judge Juan Merchan already stated, the sentence does not include any jail time, fines or probation conditions. But officially, he will be a convicted felon just 10 days before President Trump takes office. Trump will still have the opportunity to appeal his conviction, and the Supreme Court could overturn it in a possible scenario where the case is appealed to the highest court.
On several occasions, the Supreme Court has come to Trump’s aid. On Thursday, that was put on hold, at least for now.
Instead of intervening before Trump exhausts all his opportunities to appeal in state courts, the judge’s decision not to intervene allows New York courts to handle the case as they do other criminal cases. The decision is not a sign that the judges are skeptical of Trump’s legal claims or that they will not later throw out his conviction. But over the past year, courts that have repeatedly taken extraordinary steps to shield Trump from legal liability have backed down. At least for now.
The decision was 5-4. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh would have granted Trump’s request and halted sentencing.
Last July, the Supreme Court made a significant decision granting President Trump complete immunity from prosecution for official acts committed while he was president. Chief Justice John Roberts generously created this new immunity, barring the admissibility of most evidence involving official conduct. It was this aspect of the July ruling that prompted President Trump to attempt to halt the sentencing, arguing that his trial had been tainted by evidence intertwined with his duties as president. In a petition filed with the court, Trump’s personal attorneys (both of whom Trump announced would nominate him for top Justice Department posts) cited social media posts from the president’s official accounts, financial disclosure forms, and testimony from former aides about their conversations with the president.
The court order listed two reasons for rejecting President Trump’s emergency appeal. First, the problem can be resolved through the regular appeals process. Second, Merchan has already pledged to avoid a sentence that could impinge on Trump’s freedom, so his ability to do his job will not be impaired. The four opponents did not give a reason why they accepted Trump’s request.
If the judges had halted Trump’s sentencing, it would have been ominous on two counts. First, it was a sign of deference and rule-breaking for Trump’s benefit, and second, a signal that the immunity decision would be interpreted in the broadest way possible. .
The impartiality of some judges toward Trump is seriously questionable. Ginni Thomas, the wife of Justice Clarence Thomas, encouraged efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Justice Samuel Alito flew two flags associated with the Stop the Steal movement, which sought to overturn the 2020 election, at his home, but blamed both flags on his wife. Both judges would have halted sentencing. On several occasions last year, the Supreme Court helped Trump. It ensured he could remain on state ballots despite the 14th Amendment’s ban on rebels from holding federal office, repeatedly delayed Trump’s trial for his attempt to overturn the 2020 election, and delivered a shocking last-possible moment. The decision to exonerate severely damaged the entire case. .
On Tuesday, hours before this appeal was filed, Alito and Trump spoke by phone. Alito claims the call was intended to recommend the former clerk for a job in the new Trump administration. But the former clerk was already a partner at a large law firm and had already held a senior position as chief of staff to the attorney general in the Trump administration. He comes from a prominent family of Republican lawyers. But as Alito told ABC News, which first reported the call, it was Alito who had to personally provide references to former employees.
“One of my former law clerks, William Levi, asked me to take a call regarding President-elect Trump’s qualifications for government office,” Justice Alito told ABC News. Alito declined to discuss Trump’s petition in the New York case or any other business he has pending in court or may have in the future.
That may be true. Perhaps Trump was much more involved in reference checking than previously thought. But the relationship between Trump and Republican-appointed judges is growing closer, and ethical lines are becoming more blurred.
