Trump Seeks Supreme Court Intervention to Halt Sentencing in New York v. Trump Case

Preview

Donald Trump has filed an emergency petition with the U.S. Supreme Court to prevent his sentencing in the New York v. Trump case. This case pertains to Trump's conviction on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records, which resulted from an investigation into a $130,000 hush money payment made to adult film star Stormy Daniels during the 2016 presidential campaign. Trump denies any wrongdoing and claims the payment was a personal matter, not a campaign finance violation.

The sentencing, initially scheduled for January 10, 2025, has been a focal point of legal contention. Trump's legal team, led by attorneys John Sauer and Todd Blanche, argues that the sentencing should be delayed as Trump appeals his conviction. They contend that the sentencing would impose intolerable side effects, particularly as Trump prepares to take office as the president-elect. They also assert that the New York trial court lacks the authority to impose a sentence until the resolution of Trump's appeal, citing a broader argument about presidential immunity from prosecution for actions taken while in office.

Preview

Preview

Preview

The Supreme Court has requested a response from prosecutors by Thursday morning. This development follows previous legal maneuvers where Trump's attempts to delay the sentencing were denied by both the New York trial court and an appeals court. Additionally, Judge Juan M. Merchan, who presided over Trump's trial and conviction, has indicated he will not impose jail time, fines, or probation, but Trump's team argues that a felony conviction would still have significant adverse effects.

The emergency petition emphasizes the potential impact on the presidency and the federal government, arguing that the sentencing would constitute a grave injustice. Trump's legal team also points to a recent Supreme Court ruling that provided Trump and other presidents with broad immunity from prosecutions over their actions in office, suggesting that some evidence used against Trump in his hush money trial should have been shielded by this immunity.