On January 8, 2025, President-elect Donald Trump petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to halt his impending sentencing in a New York criminal case involving hush money payments. This move followed the denial of his request for a delay by a New York appeals court.
The case centers on payments made during the 2016 presidential campaign to adult film actress Stormy Daniels, intended to prevent public disclosure of an alleged affair. In 2024, a New York jury convicted Trump on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related to these payments.
Trump's legal team argues that, as a former president and current president-elect, he is entitled to immunity from criminal proceedings for actions taken before or during his presidency. They cite a 2024 Supreme Court ruling that granted broad immunity to presidents for official acts, though this ruling did not specifically address actions predating a presidency.
Despite these arguments, New York Judge Juan M. Merchan has indicated that the sentencing will proceed as scheduled on January 10, 2025. He has stated that Trump will not face prison time, fines, or probation, suggesting an unconditional discharge. However, Trump's legal team remains unsatisfied, seeking to avoid any sentencing before his inauguration.
The Supreme Court has instructed the Manhattan District Attorney's office to respond to Trump's petition by 10 a.m. on Thursday, January 9, 2025. This tight timeline underscores the urgency of the matter, given the proximity of the sentencing date and Trump's upcoming inauguration.
This legal battle adds to the Supreme Court's already demanding docket, which includes deliberations on the constitutionality of a federal TikTok ban. The Court's decision on Trump's petition could have significant implications for the scope of presidential immunity and the intersection of criminal proceedings with presidential duties.
The Manhattan District Attorney's office has maintained that the payments to Daniels were personal expenditures, not official acts, and therefore not subject to presidential immunity. They argue that falsifying business records to conceal such payments constitutes a crime under New York law, regardless of Trump's presidential status.
Trump's legal team contends that proceeding with the sentencing could have "intolerable" effects on the functions of the presidency, particularly as he prepares to assume office. They assert that the conviction and sentencing could undermine public confidence in the executive branch and impede Trump's ability to govern effectively.
The appeals court's swift denial of Trump's request for a delay reflects the judiciary's reluctance to interfere with the scheduled sentencing. Judge Ellen Gesmer's one-sentence decision did not provide reasons for the denial, but it aligns with previous rulings that have rejected claims of presidential immunity in this context.
