WASHINGTON (CN) — The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that President-elect Donald Trump can’t use the presidency to derail a sentencing hearing for felony counts related to a hush-money scheme.
The president-elect filed an eleventh-hour emergency appeal on Wednesday to avoid being sentenced for his conviction on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. The long-awaited hearing was scheduled for Friday morning before New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan, who presided over the hush money case.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined their liberal colleagues to reject Trump’s emergency appeal. The five-justice majority said Merchan’s intention to impose a sentence of unconditional discharge after a virtual hearing played a role in their decision. The court also noted that Trump can still appeal his conviction after sentencing.
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh would have granted the application. The four-justice minority did not explain their decision.
Lawmakers called for Alito to recuse from the appeal after reporting of a call between Trump and the George W. Bush appointee on Tuesday.
Last year a Manhattan jury found Trump guilty of paying hush money to a porn star during his 2016 presidential campaign.
Trump has appealed his conviction citing his newfound presidential immunity from the Supreme Court. In a divided ruling last term, the six conservative justices ruled that former presidents have absolute immunity for duties within their core powers and some immunity from official actions.
“The prospect of imposing sentence on President Trump just before he assumes office as the 47th president raises the specter of other possible restrictions on liberty, such as travel, reporting requirements, registration, probationary requirements, and others — all of which would be constitutionally intolerable under the doctrine of presidential immunity,” John Sauer, Trump’s attorney and pick for solicitor general, wrote.
The landmark decision stemmed from a D.C. prosecution against Trump on election subversion charges, but the former and future president says the ruling should similarly shield him against his New York charges.
According to Trump, his New York conviction utilized the president’s official acts as evidence.
A New York trial court rejected Trump’s former presidential immunity claim, finding that the contested evidence related entirely to unofficial conduct outside of immunity protections.
After his November victory, Trump filed a subsequent immunity appeal, citing the doctrine of sitting-president immunity, which prohibits criminal prosecutions against executive officeholders. However, the trial court said the president-elect — Trump’s title until Jan. 20 — isn’t entitled to such protections.
Trump appealed the ruling, but Associate Justice Ellen Gesmer of New York’s Appellate Division, First Department refused to postpone the sentencing hearing any further, stating that the proximity to the inauguration was due to Trump’s numerous motions to delay proceedings initially scheduled for July.
At the high court, Trump warned that the hearing threatened to undo the justices’ presidential immunity decision.
“Forcing a President to continue to defend a criminal case — potentially through trial or, even more dramatically here, through sentencing and judgment — while the appellate courts are still grappling with his claim of immunity would, in fact, force that President ‘to answer for his conduct in court’ before his claim of immunity is finally adjudicated,” Sauer wrote.