New York’s highest court delivered a significant blow to President-elect Donald Trump on Thursday, refusing to delay his sentencing on a hush money criminal conviction. The sentencing, scheduled for Friday morning, stems from Trump’s conviction on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records, and his attempts to halt the proceedings have now failed at every level of New York’s state court system.
In a brief yet decisive note, the New York Court of Appeals’ chief clerk announced that Judge Jenny Rivera had declined to sign an order stopping the sentencing. Trump’s legal team had argued that the prosecution should be dismissed, citing immunity claims as president-elect. However, the clerk’s letter made it clear that Rivera’s decision left no motion pending in the state’s highest court.
This development comes after Judge Juan Merchan, who is overseeing the case, set the sentencing date last week. Merchan had previously indicated that Trump would not face prison time and would likely receive an unconditional discharge. Despite this, Trump’s attorneys launched a legal offensive to prevent the sentencing from proceeding, arguing that it imposes an undue burden on the president-elect as he prepares to take office.
Earlier in the week, Trump’s legal team brought their case to New York’s midlevel appeals court, where Judge Ellen Gesmer rejected an emergency petition to delay the sentencing. Gesmer ruled against Trump after considering arguments from both the president-elect’s lawyers and representatives of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg.
Trump’s last remaining legal option within the state courts was the New York Court of Appeals, but the decision on Thursday dashed those hopes. The rejection highlights the consistent stance of New York’s judiciary: the president-elect’s upcoming inauguration does not exempt him from facing legal consequences for past actions.
Trump’s legal fight isn’t over just yet. On Wednesday, his team submitted an emergency application to the U.S. Supreme Court, placing their hopes on Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who oversees appeals from New York. Sotomayor now has the choice to decide the matter herself or refer it to the full Supreme Court for consideration.
In their application, Trump’s attorneys painted a dire picture of the burden the sentencing would allegedly impose on their client.
“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 wrote.
The emergency request seeks to postpone the sentencing until after Trump’s inauguration, arguing that the proceedings are an unnecessary distraction during a critical period of transition for the country.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office fired back on Thursday morning, urging the Supreme Court to deny Trump’s request. In a detailed response, Bragg’s team argued that there is a strong public interest in proceeding with the sentencing as scheduled.
“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.
The prosecution underscored the accommodations already made for Trump, noting that his virtual attendance would significantly reduce any disruption to his duties as president-elect.
The legal battle over Trump’s sentencing highlights the complex intersection of criminal accountability and executive privilege. Trump’s attorneys have consistently argued that his status as president-elect grants him immunity from such legal proceedings, but courts at every level have rejected this notion.
While Trump’s legal team awaits a decision from Justice Sotomayor or the full Supreme Court, time is running out. The sentencing is set to move forward on Friday morning, barring an extraordinary intervention from the nation’s highest court.
For Trump, the stakes go beyond the immediate sentencing. The case underscores the mounting legal challenges he faces, even as he prepares to assume the presidency. With his appeals exhausted in New York and the Supreme Court yet to weigh in, the coming hours will determine whether Trump can delay the legal reckoning awaiting him—or if he must confront it head-on before his inauguration.