In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has decided against Donald Trump's request to postpone his sentencing in a hush-money case involving adult film star Stormy Daniels.
**Supreme Court Denies Trump's Motion to Delay Hush-Money Sentencing**
**Supreme Court Denies Trump's Motion to Delay Hush-Money Sentencing**
The high court rules against the former president's last-minute appeal as sentencing looms.
Trump's hope of stalling Friday's sentencing was quashed by the Supreme Court, which denied his last-minute application by a narrow 5-4 vote. The Court was asked to determine whether the former president could have an automatic stay on his sentencing, but ultimately ruled that any issues he raised could be addressed in a future appeal. This decision follows the jury finding Trump guilty of falsifying financial records regarding a $130,000 payment made to Daniels back in 2016.
Justice Juan Merchan, who presides over the case, has already indicated that he is unlikely to impose a prison sentence on Trump. Interestingly, Justice Merchan had previously delayed the sentencing on three occasions at the request of Trump’s legal team, but last week confirmed it would proceed on January 10—a notable date right before Trump is set to take office again.
Two conservative justices, John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett, sided with the three liberal justices in this decision, marking a crucial moment in a case that has sparked litigation across various levels of New York courts. The Manhattan District Attorney's office argued strongly against Trump's appeal, highlighting the public interest in moving forward with the sentencing and describing Trump's claims of immunity as lacking substantial legal precedent.
While Trump’s attorneys have insisted that he is entitled to protections similar to those formerly granted to presidents during their terms, prosecutors have countered that only one person can occupy the presidency at any given time—the sitting president—reinforcing that Trump’s claims should not apply to his current status as a president-elect. Additionally, a group of former officials and legal experts submitted a supportive brief, urging the Court to dismiss Trump’s attempts to evade the consequences of his actions.
As the tension builds leading up to the January sentencing, the ongoing legal battles signal potential ramifications for Trump’s presidential aspirations moving forward.
Justice Juan Merchan, who presides over the case, has already indicated that he is unlikely to impose a prison sentence on Trump. Interestingly, Justice Merchan had previously delayed the sentencing on three occasions at the request of Trump’s legal team, but last week confirmed it would proceed on January 10—a notable date right before Trump is set to take office again.
Two conservative justices, John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett, sided with the three liberal justices in this decision, marking a crucial moment in a case that has sparked litigation across various levels of New York courts. The Manhattan District Attorney's office argued strongly against Trump's appeal, highlighting the public interest in moving forward with the sentencing and describing Trump's claims of immunity as lacking substantial legal precedent.
While Trump’s attorneys have insisted that he is entitled to protections similar to those formerly granted to presidents during their terms, prosecutors have countered that only one person can occupy the presidency at any given time—the sitting president—reinforcing that Trump’s claims should not apply to his current status as a president-elect. Additionally, a group of former officials and legal experts submitted a supportive brief, urging the Court to dismiss Trump’s attempts to evade the consequences of his actions.
As the tension builds leading up to the January sentencing, the ongoing legal battles signal potential ramifications for Trump’s presidential aspirations moving forward.
