WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected President-elect Donald Trump’s request to block criminal proceedings in his hush money case in New York, meaning a sentencing hearing scheduled for Friday can go ahead.
The decision on a 5-4 vote with four conservatives dissenting meant the conservative-majority court changed course after having previously handed Trump two big wins last year. Trump is set to return to the presidency on Jan. 20.
The brief unsigned order said the issues Trump wants to raise “can be addressed in the ordinary course on appeal.” The burden sentencing imposes on Trump is “relatively insubstantial,” the court added, because he is not going to receive any prison time.
The three liberal justices were in the majority with Chief Justice John Roberts and fellow conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett.
Trump said he thought it was a “fair decision” and alluded to further action he may take.
“We’re going to appeal anyway, just psychologically, because frankly it’s a disgrace,” Trump said in response to a question from a reporter at Mar-a-Lago, going on to criticize the case against him.
While the appeal to delay sentencing was struck down by the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, Trump could still attempt to appeal the verdict itself.
He said that he respected the court’s opinion.
“I’ll do my little thing tomorrow. They can have fun with their political opponent,” Trump said, trying to paint the judge as overseeing a politically motivated case.
When reached for comment, a spokesperson for Trump referred to the president-elect’s comments from Mar-a-Lago.
“For the sake and sanctity of the Presidency, I will be appealing this case, and am confident that JUSTICE WILL PREVAIL,” Trump said in a Truth Social post.
Trump’s lawyers said in court papers that if the Supreme Court did not intervene, the New York court would inflict “grave injustice and harm” on the presidency.
They argued that the case should not go forward because Trump was protected by presidential immunity, as recognized by the Supreme Court in a ruling last year concerning Trump’s prosecution for seeking to overturn the 2020 election results.
The court ruled at the time that while actions taken by presidents in their personal capacity would not be protected, certain official acts taken by presidents are off-limits for criminal prosecution.
A New York appeals court judge declined Tuesday to block Trump’s sentencing.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg had urged the court not to intervene, saying in court papers that, because the case is ongoing in lower courts, the justices have no jurisdiction to consider Trump’s claim at this stage. He added that there is a “compelling public interest” in allowing the sentencing to go ahead following the jury’s guilty verdict.
Trump was convicted in May of falsifying records related to hush money that his then-attorney Michael Cohen paid adult film star Stormy Daniels in the closing days of the 2016 presidential election. Daniels testified that she had a sexual encounter with Trump in 2006, which he has denied.
Trump’s lawyers argued that some evidence at trial focused on official actions he took in the White House that are protected under the Supreme Court’s recent ruling. They also took the unprecedented step of saying a president-elect should have the same protection from criminal prosecution that a sitting president has.
Judge Juan Merchan, who presided over the trial, had postponed Trump’s initial sentencing date in the wake of the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling. But he later determined Trump does not have immunity until he is sworn in as president and directed Trump’s sentencing on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to take place Friday morning.
Merchan made it clear last week that the sentencing would not include any prison time for Trump.
The Supreme Court has helped smooth the path to Trump’s regaining office despite the many legal obstacles he has faced in the last few years.
The immunity ruling dealt what proved to be a fatal blow to the election interference prosecution, led by special counsel Jack Smith. In a separate ruling last year, the court also ensured that states could not kick Trump off their ballots under a constitutional provision that bars people who have “engaged in insurrection” from holding federal office.
Megan Lebowitz and Alex Tabet contributed.
