Amy Howe

Jan 9 2025

Supreme Court allows Trump’s New York criminal sentencing to go forward

A divided Supreme Court on Thursday evening cleared the way for President-elect Donald Trump’s criminal sentencing to go forward on Friday morning. In a brief unsigned order issued just after 7 p.m., the justices rejected Trump’s plea to halt the sentencing proceeding in his New York hush money case, where he was convicted on 34 counts of falsifying business records to hide reimbursements made to adult film star Stormy Daniels.

Four of the court’s conservative justices – Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh – indicated that they would have granted Trump’s request. Trump would have needed five votes to prevail, which means that Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the court’s three liberal justices in voting to allow the sentencing to proceed.

The trial judge in New York, Juan Merchan, has indicated that he does not intend to sentence Trump to jail time, and he is allowing Trump to appear by video at Friday’s sentencing hearing. But Trump sought to have the sentencing put off. He argued that as the president-elect, he is entitled to immunity from criminal proceedings. Moreover, he added, prosecutors improperly relied on evidence of his official acts – such as his posts on the social-media platform X, then known as Twitter – to obtain his convictions.

Merchan declined to put Trump’s sentencing on hold. He contended that Trump himself was responsible for the delays in sentencing. Trump should not now be able to avoid sentencing, he wrote, by asserting that the hearing will take place too close to the inauguration.

After a New York appeals court judge also rejected Trump’s request to block his sentencing, Trump came to the Supreme Court on Wednesday, asking the justices to intervene. Citing the Supreme Court’s July 2024 ruling in Trump v. United States, in which a majority of the justices held that former presidents have broad immunity from criminal prosecution for their conduct while in office, Trump contended that requiring him “to prepare for a criminal sentencing in a felony case while he is preparing to lead the free world as President of the United States in less than two weeks imposes an intolerable, unconstitutional burden on him that undermines these vital national interests.”

New York prosecutors urged the justices on Thursday morning to allow Trump’s sentencing to proceed as scheduled, telling them that there is no need for the justices to take “the extraordinary step of intervening” now. Calling Trump’s suggestion that he should not be sentenced on Friday because he is the president-elect “baseless,” they added that the evidence of Trump’s guilt was “overwhelming,” so that a jury would have found him guilty even without the evidence that he now claims was based on his official acts as president.

In its order denying Trump’s request to halt his sentencing, the court explained that Trump’s complaints regarding the use of evidence of his allegedly official acts could be addressed on appeal. And it added that “the burden that sentencing will impose on the President-Elect’s responsibilities is relatively insubstantial in light of the trial court’s stated intent to impose a sentence of ‘unconditional discharge’ after a brief virtual hearing.”

ABC News reported on Wednesday that shortly before his request to block his sentencing proceeding was filed, Trump spoke with Justice Samuel Alito about one of Alito’s former law clerks, William Levi, who is seeking a job in the new administration. In a statement, Alito maintained that he had not discussed Trump’s request or any other Supreme Court cases with Trump.

Rep. Jamie Raskin, a Democrat from Maryland and the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, on Thursday called on Alito to recuse himself. “Impartial justice under the Constitution,” Raskin said in a statement, “demands that Justice Alito hold himself to the highest ethical standards and avoid even the appearance of impropriety.”

Alito did not address the recusal question, noting only that (along with Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh) he would have granted Trump’s request.

Amy L Howe
Until September 2016, Amy served as the editor and reporter for SCOTUSblog, a blog devoted to coverage of the Supreme Court of the United States; she continues to serve as an independent contractor and reporter for SCOTUSblog. Before turning to full-time blogging, she served as counsel in over two dozen merits cases at the Supreme Court and argued two cases there. From 2004 until 2011, she co-taught Supreme Court litigation at Stanford Law School; from 2005 until 2013, she co-taught a similar class at Harvard Law School. She has also served as an adjunct professor at American University’s Washington College of Law and Vanderbilt Law School. Amy is a graduate of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and holds a master’s degree in Arab Studies and a law degree from Georgetown University.
Tweets by @AHoweBlogger
Recent ScotusBlog Posts from Amy
  • Venezuelan TPS recipients tell justices to let status stand
  • Government asks justices to allow DHS to revoke parole for a half-million noncitizens
  • Supreme Court allows Trump to ban transgender people from military
More from Amy Howe

Recent Posts

  • Court appears to back legality of HHS preventative care task force
  • Justices take up Texas woman’s claim against USPS
  • Supreme Court considers parents’ efforts to exempt children from books with LGBTQ themes
  • Justices temporarily bar government from removing Venezuelan men under Alien Enemies Act
  • Court hears challenge to ACA preventative-care coverage
Site built and optimized by Sound Strategies