Update: On Thursday night, after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to block President-elect Donald Trump's sentencing to take place on Friday, the president-elect put out a post over Truth Social, calling out Judge Juan Merchan and indicating he will appeal.
In such a statement, Trump did not blame the justices, and even began by indicating that "I appreciate the time and effort of the United States Supreme Court in trying to remedy the great injustice done to me by the highly conflicted 'Acting Justice,' who should not have been allowed to try this case," referring to Judge Juan Merchan's title.
"Every Legal Scholar stated, unequivocally, that this is a case that should never have been brought. There was no case against me. In other words, I am innocent of all of the Judge’s made up, fake charges. This was nothing other than Weaponization of our Justice System against a Political Opponent. It’s called Lawfare, and nothing like this has ever happened in the United States of America, and it should never be allowed to happen again. To this day, this highly political and corrupt Judge has put a gag order on me, which takes away my First Amendment right to speak about very important aspects of the case," Trump continued, bringing up many criticisms against the case brought. He also indicated he will indeed appeal. "For the sake and sanctity of the Presidency, I will be appealing this case, and am confident that JUSTICE WILL PREVAIL. The pathetic, dying remnants of the Witch Hunts against me will not distract us as we unite and, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!"
I appreciate the time and effort of the United States Supreme Court in trying to remedy the great injustice done to me by the highly conflicted “Acting Justice,” who should not have been allowed to try this case. Every Legal Scholar stated, unequivocally, that this is a case that…
— Donald J. Trump Posts From His Truth Social (@TrumpDailyPosts) January 10, 2025
Original: After a decision from the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday night, President-elect Donald Trump will be sentenced on Friday, January 10, in his hush money case. According to The New York Times, it was an unsigned 5-4 order that decided Trump can be sentenced.
As reporting from The New York Times mentioned:
The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday denied President-elect Donald J. Trump’s emergency bid to halt his criminal sentencing in New York, all but ensuring it would proceed as planned on Friday.
In a brief unsigned order, a five-justice majority noted that Mr. Trump was not facing jail time and that he could still challenge his conviction “in the ordinary course on appeal.”
Although Mr. Trump had argued that being sentenced 10 days before his inauguration would distract from the presidential transition, the majority held, “The burden that sentencing will impose on the president-elect’s responsibilities is relatively insubstantial.”
Four of the court’s conservative justices — Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh — noted dissents without providing reasons.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday denied President-elect Donald J. Trump’s emergency bid to halt his criminal sentencing in New York, all but ensuring it would proceed as planned on Friday.
With such a breakdown, it looks like Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett voted with the three liberal justices.
Earlier on Thursday, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), who now serves as the ranking member for the House Judiciary Committee, called on Justice Samuel Alito to recuse himself, given that Trump and the justice had reportedly had a phone call on Tuesday, thought it was before Trump's attorneys even filed his request, and Alito did not know such a request was coming in. According to Alito, the two discussed he qualifications of a former law clerk of Alito, who is looking to work in the Trump administration.
Given that Trump will still be sentenced, and Alito was in the minority, such an insistence seems particularly moot now.
Curt Levey, the president of the Committee For Justice, also provided a statement to Townhall about calls for Alito to recuse himself, highlighting why it was particularly nonsensical, given the ordinary nature of the phone call.
"In countless phone calls every day, people’s former bosses call prospective employers to give references. The claim that this creates some conflict of interest or that former judicial clerks should be less able to rely on references from the judges they served is absurd. Rep. Raskin’s demand for Justice Alito’s recusal in the Trump v. New York case, which is completely unrelated to the reference Alito provided to Trump, is just more political grandstanding by the ultra-partisan Congressman, especially in light of the fact that Justice Alito wasn’t aware that Trump planned to petition the Supreme Court for relief," Levey reminded. "I’m glad to see that Justice Alito did not give in to Raskin’s demand for recusal, both because it’s the right decision ethically and because it demonstrates that politicians will fail when they attempt to compromise judicial independence through baseless accusations and other intimidation."
On May 30 of last year, Trump was found guilty on 34 felony counts in a case brought by Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg, with both Bragg and Judge Juan Merchan having been criticized for their handling of the case. The president-elect has indicated he plans to appear virtually for sentencing, as The New York Times mentioned to conclude their report.
Trump has vowed to appeal the conviction, which legal experts have agreed he'll be successful with. The Court also indicated that Trump could use the typical channels as well with that.
Such a decision from Thursday night comes after the Court has ruled in Trump's favor before, including with the unanimous decision of Trump v. Anderson, to do with preventing Colorado from kicking him off the ballot. On July 1, a 6-3 decision of Trump v. United States also spoke to presidential immunity from prosecution.
This article has also been updated to include a statement from Curt Levey, the president of the Committee For Justice.