Donald Trump is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to step in and stop his sentencing hearing in a hush-money case set to take place this Friday in New York. Trump’s legal team argues that, as the president-elect, he should have the same legal protections as a sitting president.
In a lengthy 51-page filing submitted Wednesday morning, Trump’s lawyer, D. John Sauer, claimed the judge in the case made a mistake by not throwing out Trump’s 34 felony convictions after he won the 2024 presidential election. Sauer argues that the legal immunity given to a sitting president, established in a landmark Supreme Court ruling last year, should also apply during the transition period before the inauguration.
Trump’s filing emphasized that once he takes office as the 47th president on January 20, 2025, he would be fully immune from any criminal charges, whether at the state or federal level. Sauer argued that this immunity should also cover the critical period when Trump is preparing to take over the responsibilities of the presidency.
The move to halt the sentencing comes a day after an appellate court judge in New York refused Trump’s request to delay the hearing indefinitely. Trump has consistently criticized Acting New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office, and his former attorney Michael Cohen, calling the entire case politically motivated.
In the filing, Trump’s team insisted that his appeal should automatically pause all proceedings in the trial court. They argued the case against him was flawed from the start, alleging it relied on false claims from Cohen, whom Trump labeled as a “disgraced and disbarred liar.”
Sauer also claimed that the trial court has no authority to sentence Trump until his appeal, which challenges the idea of presidential immunity, is resolved. He hinted that this issue could ultimately reach the Supreme Court for a final decision.
During earlier court arguments, New York appellate judge Ellen Gesmer was skeptical of Trump’s claims. She asked Trump’s attorney, Todd Blanche, if there was any legal precedent to support the idea that presidents-elect have the same immunity as sitting presidents. Blanche admitted there wasn’t, stating, “There has never been any case like this before.”
Steven Wu, representing the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, argued that Trump’s claim of automatic immunity was baseless. Wu pointed out that Trump’s legal team couldn’t cite a single case to support their argument.
Gesmer also noted that the timing of the sentencing, which Trump’s team had criticized for being too close to his inauguration, had been delayed multiple times at Trump’s own request.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who oversees emergency applications for the Second Circuit, has ordered Manhattan prosecutors to respond to Trump’s petition by Thursday morning. Meanwhile, Friday’s sentencing appears to be moving forward.
Interestingly, Judge Merchan has already indicated that Trump may not face any severe consequences. He has suggested that incarceration, though legally possible, is not a realistic option in this case. Given the demands of Trump’s transition to the presidency, Merchan has even allowed him to appear remotely for the hearing.
In a written statement earlier this week, Merchan noted that while the court must officially hear from all parties before deciding on sentencing, it’s unlikely he will impose jail time. Instead, he hinted at a more lenient approach, aligning with prosecutors who have backed away from recommending imprisonment.
For now, all eyes are on the Supreme Court to see whether Trump’s last-minute effort to halt the proceedings will succeed or if Friday’s hearing will move ahead as planned in Manhattan.
