Divided Supreme Court clears path for Trump criminal sentencing in New York hush money case

WASHINGTON — A divided Supreme Court on Thursday rejected President-elect Donald Trump’s request to block Friday’s sentencing in his New York hush-money criminal case, guaranteeing that Trump would be imprisoned upon his return to the White House. Labeled “convicted felon.”

In the first test of the court’s receptiveness to the incoming president, four of the court’s six conservative members — Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett J. Kavanaugh – said they would approve Trump’s emergency request.

Prosecutors called it an “extraordinary” request.

Trump wants to skip the normal appeals process, arguing that the “burden, disruption, humiliation and distraction” of the verdict would be too great for him as he prepares to return to the White House on January 20.

This is despite the fact that, at Trump’s request, his sentencing was delayed until after the election. New York Judge Juan Merchan has said the president-elect will not face jail time, fines or probation while his appeal continues.

The court ruled by a 5-4 majority, saying it left the president-elect’s sentencing burden “relatively small.”

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett made the decision along with the court’s three liberals.

Trump stopped short of lashing out at the judges who disagreed with him, instead stressing that the majority noted that he was not serving jail time or probation and could still appeal his conviction.

“I read it and I think it’s actually a fair decision,” Trump told reporters. “So I’m going to do my little thing tomorrow. They can have fun with their political opponents.

Trump was convicted in May of 34 counts of falsifying business records to hide payments to porn actresses. Trump paid his former lawyer Michael Cohen, who in turn paid adult film star Stormy Daniels to keep quiet about alleged sexual encounters before the 2016 election.

Trump sought to dismiss the case, saying last year’s Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity meant the evidence used in the trial was inappropriate.

His lawyers also said the decision to protect a sitting president from criminal charges for official conduct while in office extends to the transition period between the election and inauguration.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office called the claim unprecedented.

His office told the Supreme Court: “Non-government employees will not perform any official functions that would be compromised by the conclusion of a criminal case against a private citizen for private conduct.”

Prosecutors also said the judge had no reason to interfere with the state criminal trial until an appeals court reviews Trump’s conviction.

The majority of the court said Trump could raise the improper evidence claim “in the ordinary course of appeal.”

Georgetown University law professor Stephen Vladeck wrote on Substack that Trump’s request is an early litmus test for how justices will handle a second Trump administration.

Vladek said Trump’s emergency request was “a relatively low-cost opportunity for the court to demonstrate some independence from Trump on the eve of his return to office at a time when Republicans control all three branches of government.”

The signal could become even more important after Justice Samuel Alito admitted this week that he spoke to Trump on Tuesday and recommended a former law clerk for a job in the administration.

Alito said he did not discuss Trump’s appeal or any other matters that might come to court during their call.

But Gabe Roth, executive director of Fix the Court, said the private conversation violated protocol.

Ross said, “This call is just an excuse for Trump to talk to one of the nine people who will decide the fate of his hush money judgment in the coming days, and they will review more Trump-related issues over the next four years.”

The government watchdog group Accountable.US called on Alito to recuse himself from considering Trump’s appeal, as did Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee.

This article originally appeared in USA Today: Supreme Court clears the way for criminal verdict in Trump hush money case