Trump Asks Supreme Court to Halt Sentencing in New York Hush Money Case

Trump Asks Supreme Court to Halt Sentencing in New York Hush Money Case

President-elect Donald Trump asked the Supreme Court to halt his Friday sentencing for the hush money case in New York City.

Trump’s lawyers wrote:

This Court should enter an immediate stay of further proceedings in the New York trial court to prevent grave injustice and harm to the institution of the Presidency and the operations of the federal government. The commencement of President Trump’s interlocutory appeal raising claims of Presidential immunity causes an automatic stay of proceedings in the trial court under Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593 (2024) (“Trump”), and related case law. This appeal will ultimately result in the dismissal of the District Attorney’s politically motivated prosecution that was flawed from the very beginning, centered around the wrongful actions and false claims of a disgraced, disbarred serial-liar former attorney, violated President Trump’s due process rights, and had no merit. In the meantime, the New York trial court lacks authority to impose sentence and judgment on President Trump—or conduct any further criminal proceedings against him—until the resolution of his underlying appeal raising substantial claims of Presidential immunity, including by review in this Court if necessary.

A jury found Trump guilty of 34 felony counts for falsifying business records to pay off Stormy Daniels to keep quiet about their alleged affair.

Judge Juan Merchan refused to throw out the guilty verdict, scheduling the sentencing for January 10, ten days before the inauguration.

However, Merchan hinted that Trump won’t face any punishment.

Merchan said it’s “proper at this juncture” to inform everyone that it’s 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.”

“As such; in balancing the aforementioned considerations in conjunction with the underlying concerns of the Presidential immunity doctrine, a sentence of an unconditional discharge appears to be the most viable solution to ensure finality and allow Defendant to pursue his appellate options,” Merchan added.

The lawyers asked Merchan to stay the sentencing because Trump appealed the judge’s decision.

Trump’s lawyers claimed the appeal automatically triggers a stay. The lawyers expanded on the claim in their filing to SCOTUS, basing it on a decision from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia:

Before this Court’s decision in Trump, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia held that “Defendant’s appeal [on Presidential immunity grounds] automatically stays any further proceedings that would move this case towards trial or impose additional burdens of litigation on Defendant.” United States v. Trump, No. CR 23-257 (TSC), 2023 WL 8615775, at *1 (D.D.C. Dec. 13, 2023) (emphasis added). This Court’s holding and reasoning in Trump resoundingly confirm the correctness of that holding that a stay is mandated. Trump explicitly holds that a claim of Presidential immunity is subject to interlocutory appeal before further criminal proceedings may occur, and its logic dictates that this interlocutory appeal must be accompanied by an automatic stay of trial-court proceedings while that interlocutory appeal is adjudicated. See, e.g., 603 U.S. at 630, 635. The federal courts honored this clear and compelling doctrine, but the New York courts are indefensibly disregarding it.

In Trump, this Court emphasized that “[t]he essence of immunity ‘is its possessor’s entitlement not to have to answer for his conduct’ in court.” Trump, 603 U.S. at 630 (quoting Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 525 (1985)). Because “the President is . . . immune from prosecution, a district court’s denial of immunity” must be “appealable before trial.” Id. at 635 (citing Mitchell, 472 U.S. at 524-30). “[Q]uestions of immunity are reviewable before trial because the essence of immunity is the entitlement not to be subject to suit.” Id. (emphasis added).

Merchan refused to stay the sentencing. A New York appeals court also denied Trump’s request to delay the sentencing.

“Judge Ellen Gesmer rejected Trump’s claim that the case should be delayed because of presidential immunity, after his attorney argued before the court that Trump is covered by presidential immunity that extends to him while he waits to be sworn in,” reported ABC News.

The lawyers admitted there is no precedent that “presidential immunity extends to President-elect.”

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.