CNN
—
The Supreme Court said in a 5-4 decision that President-elect Donald Trump could be sentenced Friday in his hush money case in New York.
The high court on Thursday rejected President Trump’s emergency request to delay the proceedings, leaving him poised to be sentenced just days before his inauguration for a second term on January 20.
Four conservative justices, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh, said they would grant President Trump’s request. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the court’s three liberals in opposing Trump.
New York judge Juan Marchan, who oversaw Trump’s trial, ordered sentencing in the case Friday morning, but indicated that Trump would face no fines or jail time.
A sentencing hearing is scheduled for 9:30 a.m. Friday.
In a brief, one-paragraph statement, the court said some of Trump’s concerns could be addressed “through the normal course of appeals.” The court also reasoned that the sentence imposed on President Trump’s culpability was “relatively light” given the trial court’s stated intent not to impose punishment.
The president-elect’s request to the U.S. Supreme Court was an unusual appeal because judges rarely take up state criminal cases before all appeals in state courts have been exhausted. Mr. Trump’s fundamental challenge to his conviction remains pending, and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has argued that the Supreme Court does not even have the authority to consider an emergency request to delay sentencing.
President Trump is in trouble over payments to then-lawyer Michael Cohen to repay the $130,000 hush money paid to adult film star Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election about her alleged affair. He was found guilty in May of falsifying business records to avoid making statements. . (Mr. Trump has denied having an affair.)
The president-elect, who takes office in two weeks, should have his conviction thrown out after the Supreme Court’s conservative majority ruled in July that the former president is entitled to blanket immunity for official actions. He is contesting the conviction.
Part of Trump’s argument is that his trial included evidence relating to his official conduct while in office that would normally be prohibited from being shown to a jury under a Supreme Court immunity ruling. It was. Prosecutors countered that these concerns could be resolved in an appeals court.
Mr. Marchand rejected that argument in December, ruling that the evidence presented by the Manhattan District Attorney’s office was irrelevant to Mr. Trump’s official conduct as president.
Trump’s lawyers told the Supreme Court that having to deal with the sentencing could impede Trump’s presidential transition and jeopardize national security.
“Defending criminal proceedings at all stages, and especially defending criminal convictions such as this one, poses unique burdens and burdens for criminal defendants,” Trump’s lawyers told the high court.
“President Trump is currently engaged in one of his most important and delicate tasks yet: preparing to assume executive power in two weeks, all of which are essential to the national security and vital interests of the United States,” they wrote. There is.
New York state prosecutors ridiculed that claim in their own filing Thursday.
“There is a compelling public interest in proceeding with sentencing,” Bragg told the Supreme Court. “Defendant provides no record to support his contention that his duties as president-elect preclude him from virtually attending the sentencing, which will likely last less than an hour.”
In his final filing Thursday, President Trump said the case involves concerns of “extraordinary national importance” and that delaying the decision would irreparably damage “our constitutional structure and our nation.” He claimed that he would suffer damages.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court found itself embroiled in a new ethics controversy after Trump and Alito spoke by phone this week, just before Trump’s appeal.
Leading congressional Democrats on Thursday called on Mr. Alito to recuse himself from the sentencing case, citing a phone call he had with the president-elect to discuss one of his former clerks who worked in the incoming administration. .
“It is clear that Justice Alito has active and deeply personal issues on the court, but his decision to have a private phone call with President Trump shows that he fundamentally misunderstands the basic requirements of judicial ethics.” Or he’s made it clear that he believes he’s beyond the reach of justice.” It’s completely ethical,” said Maryland Congressman Jamie Raskin.
Judges can decide for themselves whether a recusal is warranted, but they rarely do so.
Alito said the sentencing controversy was not discussed during the conversation. Alito said in a statement Wednesday that the two also did not discuss “other issues that are pending before the Supreme Court or in past Supreme Court decisions regarding the next president, or that may arise in the future.”
This story has been updated with additional developments.
