New York's top court refuses to halt Donald Trump's hush money sentencing
New York's highest court refused to halt President-elect Donald Trump's criminal sentencing – scheduled for Friday – in his hush money criminal case.
Thursday's ruling is the latest setback for Trump in his efforts to get sentencing for his conviction on 34 felony counts derailed after an appeals court upheld the sentencing date Tuesday. Trump has also asked the U.S. Supreme Court to halt the sentencing, which still hasn't ruled on his request.
A 12-person Manhattan jury unanimously concluded on May 30 that Trump falsified business records 34 separate times in order to cover up a hush money payment made to porn star Stormy Daniels ahead of the 2016 presidential election.
Supreme Court appeal
In his request for the Supreme Court to block the sentencing, Trump argued that Manhattan Judge Juan Merchan doesn't have the authority to sentence him until appeals courts have ruled on Trump's argument that the entire case should be dismissed based on presidential immunity. Trump is arguing that evidence connected to his first presidency was improperly allowed at his trial.
In addition, Trump urged the justices to block the sentencing because he is engaging "in the extraordinarily demanding task of preparing to assume the Executive power of the United States."
In a response filed Thursday, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg said Trump is making an “extraordinary" claim that the immunity he will enjoy once he returns to the White House applies now.
“Non-employees of the government do not exercise any official function that would be impaired by the conclusion of a criminal case against a private citizen for private conduct,” Bragg told the Supreme Court.
He also said there’s no basis for the court to intervene in a state criminal trial before an appeals court has reviewed Trump’s conviction.
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito said in a statement that he spoke to Trump by phone on Tuesday to recommend a former law clerk for a job in the future Trump administration. Alito said he and Trump didn't discuss Trump's pending case.
Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, called on Alito to recuse himself from any decisions on Trump's case.
"Especially when paired with his troubling past partisan ideological activity in favor of Trump, Justice Alito’s decision to have a personal phone call with President Trump—who obviously has an active and deeply personal matter before the court—makes clear that he fundamentally misunderstands the basic requirements of judicial ethics or, more likely, believes himself to be above judicial ethics altogether," Raskin said in a statement Thursday.
Why Trump will likely be spared jail time
Merchan already indicated his inclination to sentence Trump to an "unconditional discharge," which means the soon-to-be president wouldn't face any ongoing criminal supervision or conditions. Although normally a conviction on the charges Trump faced would have allowed Merchan to impose a broad range of sentences – from mere community service to several years in prison – the judge described an unconditional sentence as "the most viable solution" to bring the case to a close, allow Trump to pursue an appeal, and avoid interfering with Trump's upcoming presidency.
"While this Court as a matter of law must not make any determination on sentencing prior to giving the parties and Defendant an opportunity to be heard, it seems proper at this juncture to make known the Court's inclination to not impose any sentence of incarceration, a sentence authorized by the conviction but one the People concede they no longer view as a practicable recommendation," Merchan wrote in a Jan. 3 order.
Prosecutors in Bragg's office argued in a Dec. 9 court filing that Merchan might not be permitted to impose jail or prison time given the special legal protections Trump will have during his upcoming presidency.
The court "is not required to impose a sentence of incarceration at all, and could even impose an unconditional discharge," prosecutors wrote.
Merchan ruled that Trump could appear virtually rather than in person if he preferred, to minimize the mental and physical demands on the real estate mogul during his presidential transition period.
(This article has been updated to add new information.)