In a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court handed President-elect Donald Trump a largely symbolic, but still politically significant, loss Thursday evening. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, both Republicans, voted with the court’s three Democrats.
known as litigation Trump v. New YorkTrump’s felony conviction involves falsifying business records related to hush money Trump made to an adult actress. Trump was indicted on 34 felony charges last May, but is not scheduled to be sentenced until Friday. Trump asked the Supreme Court to halt hearings on that conviction, at least until a higher court hears his appeal, arguing that his conviction violates a legal doctrine newly established by the Supreme Court’s recent immunity ruling in Trump’s favor, which extends to former presidents— But- unlimited immunity from prosecution.
The real stakes in this Supreme Court dispute were fairly low. Although Trump’s sentencing is pending, the judge presiding over his criminal trial has indicated that he will sentence Trump to an “unconditional discharge,” meaning Trump will not be sentenced to prison, fines, or probation even if he is convicted. Still, Trump wanted to stop the process where he would have received the sentence.
In asserting such immunity, Trump relied heavily on the court’s July decision Trump v. United States (2024). In that case, six Republican justices held that Trump enjoyed broad immunity from prosecution for any crimes he has committed (or may commit in the future) in the exercise of presidential power.
In contrast, the new case involves criminal activity that Trump engaged in before he was elected president. Nevertheless, Trump claimed that the July decision required the court to stop the sentencing hearing — among other things, Trump’s lawyers argued that his New York conviction was invalid because the trial included testimony from some of Trump’s former presidential aides and arguably involved official business.
In ruling against Trump, the five-justice majority emphasized that they were doing so in large part because of Trump New York Cases are so few. In a single-paragraph order, the court disclosed that it decided to withdraw from the case for the time being because “the violations alleged in President-elect Trump’s state-court trial can be addressed in the normal course of appeals” and because Trump faces a minimal burden because the trial judge ordered him to Want to give such a light sentence.
Nothing in the court’s order after hearing in other appellate courts precludes involvement in this case. The Supreme Court is suspending its hands for now.
It is noteworthy, however, that four judges have dissented in this more or less contentious dispute. This suggests that there is strong support among the Court for reading the July immunity decision too broadly. And, of course, if any one of the five justices in the majority changes their vote, Trump will prevail the next time this dispute reaches the Supreme Court’s doorstep.
