New York’s highest court has shut down President-elect Donald Trump’s efforts to delay his sentencing on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records, paving the way for the proceeding to take place on Friday morning. This decision marks a significant legal setback for Trump, whose claims of immunity and appeals have now been rejected by every level of New York’s state court system.
In a decisive ruling on Thursday, the New York Court of Appeals refused to intervene in the case. The court’s chief clerk announced that Judge Jenny Rivera had declined to sign an order stopping the sentencing from moving forward. Trump’s legal team had argued that his status as president-elect should exempt him from such proceedings, but the court rejected these arguments without elaboration.
“As a result of the Judge’s determination, no motion is pending in the above title at the Court of Appeals,” the clerk’s note stated.
This marks the culmination of a week-long series of legal battles by Trump’s attorneys to delay the sentencing, which stems from allegations that he falsified business records to cover up hush money payments. Despite Judge Juan Merchan’s earlier indication that Trump would not face prison time and would likely receive an unconditional discharge, the president-elect’s legal team has fought aggressively to postpone the proceeding.
Trump’s attempts to delay the sentencing have been systematically rejected by New York courts. Earlier this week, Judge Ellen Gesmer of the midlevel appeals court dismissed Trump’s emergency petition to halt the sentencing. Gesmer’s ruling followed arguments from both Trump’s lawyers and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who opposed any delay.
With the New York Court of Appeals now refusing to intervene, Trump’s last legal avenue within the state has been closed. The consistent rulings across New York’s judicial system make it clear that Trump’s upcoming inauguration does not shield him from facing legal consequences.
Trump’s legal team is now pinning its hopes on the U.S. Supreme Court, which received an emergency application from his attorneys on Wednesday. The appeal was submitted to Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who handles emergency matters arising from New York. Sotomayor has the discretion to rule on the application herself or refer it to the full court for consideration.
In their filing, Trump’s attorneys described the sentencing as an undue burden that infringes on his ability to prepare for the presidency.
“Forcing President Trump 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,” Trump’s legal team argued.
The emergency appeal asks the Supreme Court to postpone the sentencing until after Trump’s inauguration, contending that the proceeding could distract from his responsibilities during a critical transition period.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg strongly opposed Trump’s request, filing a response with the Supreme Court on Thursday morning. Bragg argued that the public interest lies in moving forward with the sentencing as planned, emphasizing that the trial court has already taken steps to minimize any potential disruptions to Trump’s presidential transition.
“There is a compelling public interest in proceeding to sentencing; the trial court has taken extraordinary steps to minimize any burdens on defendant, including by announcing his intent to sentence defendant to an unconditional discharge; and defendant has provided no record support for his claim that his duties as President-elect foreclose him from virtually attending a sentencing that will likely take no more than an hour,” Bragg’s office wrote.
Bragg’s team also highlighted that Trump’s virtual attendance would make the sentencing process quick and minimally invasive, undermining the claim that it would interfere with his duties.
This legal clash underscores the tension between executive privilege and accountability. Trump’s attorneys have consistently argued that his election as president grants him immunity from ongoing legal cases, but courts across New York have rejected these claims.
As Friday approaches, Trump’s legal team awaits a decision from Justice Sotomayor or the full Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court declines to intervene, the sentencing will proceed as scheduled, marking the first time a president-elect will face such a legal reckoning.
For Trump, the stakes extend beyond this immediate case. The decision could set a precedent for how the legal system handles criminal cases involving sitting or incoming presidents. While Judge Merchan has signaled that the sentencing will not include prison time, Trump’s conviction and the broader implications of the case cast a shadow over his inauguration.
The clock is ticking, and unless the Supreme Court intervenes, Trump will face sentencing Friday morning, closing one chapter of his legal challenges as he prepares to assume the presidency.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login