Supreme Court Denies Trump’s Bid to Delay Sentencing in Hush-Money Case

• The US Supreme Court denied President-elect Donald Trump’s bid to postpone sentencing in the criminal hush-money case by a 5-4 decision.
• Despite multiple appeals, Trump’s sentencing is set for January 10, just days before his presidential inauguration.
• Justice Juan Merchan indicated that jail time will not be considered, with legal appeals expected to follow.

The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected President-elect Donald Trump’s last-minute effort to delay his sentencing in the criminal hush-money case, clearing the way for the proceedings to move forward on Friday.

In a narrow 5-4 decision, the justices denied Trump’s appeal for an automatic stay, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joining the court’s three liberal members to oppose the request. Conservative justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh dissented, favouring a delay.

The case canters on Trump’s conviction for falsifying records to conceal reimbursements for a $130,000 payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels during the 2016 election, misclassified as legal expenses. While Justice Juan Merchan, overseeing the case, has indicated he will not impose a jail sentence, Trump has continued to decry the proceedings as politically motivated.

EDITOR’S PICKS 

• Polaris Bank’s Initiatives Ensure Continuous Education for Over 16,000 Students
• Verydarkman Pranks Nigerians: No N180 Missing From NGO Funds
• Why I Faked Missing N180m — VeryDarkMan

Reacting to the Supreme Court’s decision, Trump called the case a “disgrace” but described the ruling as a “fair decision, actually,” during remarks to reporters on Thursday evening. He also criticized Justice Merchan, suggesting political bias, and later took to his Truth Social platform to call the case part of “the pathetic, dying remnants of the Witch Hunts against me.”

The Supreme Court dismissed Trump’s petition, reasoning that the burdens of attending a sentencing were “insubstantial” and that his concerns could be addressed during an appeal. Lower courts in New York had already rejected similar efforts to delay the proceedings.

Manhattan prosecutors argued there was a “compelling public interest” in holding the sentencing, emphasizing there was “no basis for such an intervention.” Trump’s lawyers had also raised the question of whether a president-elect is immune from criminal prosecution, but the Supreme Court did not address that argument.

The sentencing was originally scheduled for July 2024, following Trump’s May conviction. However, his legal team successfully secured delays on three occasions. Justice Merchan recently ruled that the proceedings would move forward on January 10, days before Trump is set to be sworn in for a second term as president.

In the lead-up to the decision, Justice Samuel Alito faced scrutiny for reportedly speaking with Trump by phone, where he allegedly recommended a former law clerk for a position in the incoming administration. Despite this, the majority on the bench ruled against further delays, stating that the public interest outweighed Trump’s personal concerns.

In quick succession, New York courts dismissed Trump’s legal challenges. On Wednesday, his legal team appealed directly to the Supreme Court, urging the justices to intervene and stay the proceedings to “prevent grave injustice and harm to the institution of the Presidency and the operations of the federal government.”

The Supreme Court had previously ruled in a 6-3 decision that US presidents were immune from criminal prosecution for actions taken during their time in office, a decision that favoured Trump in a case involving allegations of election interference. However, since his re-election, Trump’s legal team has argued that such immunity protections should extend to a president-elect, even in this ongoing Manhattan criminal case.

FURTHER READING

• Why We Must Increase Call, Data Tariffs In 2025 – Telecoms Operators
• 19 Year old Arraigned in Kaduna for Allegedly Stabbing Uncle
• Diversify or Face Poverty: Abbas Calls for Economic Shift

Manhattan prosecutors opposed this claim, asserting that no court has supported the idea that a president-elect should be granted such immunity, emphasizing that “there is only one President at a time.”

Meanwhile, a group of former public officials and legal scholars submitted an amicus brief, urging the Supreme Court to reject Trump’s efforts to evade accountability.

In another blow to Trump on Thursday, a federal appeals court in Georgia ruled against a bid to block the release of a portion of special counsel Jack Smith’s report concerning Trump’s alleged attempt to block the peaceful transfer of power to Joe Biden after the 2020 election. Lawyers for Trump associates Walt Nauta and Carlos de Oliveira had argued that releasing the report would harm their chances in potential future criminal cases.

Click here to watch our video of the week: