Divided Supreme Court paves way for Trump’s criminal sentence in NY hush money case

WASHINGTON – A divided Supreme Court on Thursday rejected President-elect Donald Trump’s bid to block Friday’s sentencing in his New York money laundering case, ensuring that Trump will carry the “convicted” label when he returns to the White House.

In the first test of how the court would accept the incoming president, four of the court’s six conservative members – Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh – said they would grant Trump’s emergency request.

Prosecutors had called it an “extraordinary request”.

Trump wanted to bypass the normal appeals process, saying the “burden, inconvenience, discrimination, and inconvenience” of the sentence is too disruptive to his preparations to return to the White House on Jan. 20.

That happened even though his sentencing was delayed until after the election at Trump’s request. And New York Judge Juan Merchan has already indicated that the president-elect will not receive jail time, fines or probation while his appeals are pending.

The court’s 5-4 majority said that made the burden of sentencing the president’s appointees “comparatively weak.”

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined three other court officials in making that decision.

Instead of criticizing the justices who opposed him, Trump said on social media that he was grateful for “the time and effort of the Supreme Court of the United States to try to correct the great injustice that was done to me.”

“There was no charge against me,” he said. “Because of the sanctity of the Office of the President, I will forward this case, and I am sure that JUSTICE WILL BE DONE”

Trump was convicted in May of 34 counts of falsifying business records to hide payments to a sex actress. Trump paid off his former lawyer, Michael Cohen, who also paid off aging movie star Stormy Daniels to remain silent before the 2016 election about alleged sexual encounters.

Trump is trying to dismiss the case by saying that last year’s Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity meant the evidence used in the case was improper.

His lawyers also said that the ruling protecting sitting presidents from criminal charges while in office extends to the transition period between elections and inauguration.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office called the lawsuit unprecedented.

“Non-public servants do not perform any official duty that would be interrupted by the conclusion of a criminal case against a private citizen for private conduct,” his office told the Supreme Court.

Prosecutors also said there was no reason for the jury to intervene in the criminal case before an appeals court reviewed Trump’s conviction.

The court’s majority said Trump could raise his claims about improper testimony “through the usual appellate process.”

Trump’s request was an early test of how the justices would react to Trump’s second administration, Georgetown law professor Stephen Vladeck wrote in Substack.

Vladeck said Trump’s emergency request is “a low-cost opportunity for the Court to show its independence from Trump on the eve of his return to office” when Republicans control all three branches of government.

That signal may be the most important to send after Justice Samuel Alito admitted this week that he spoke with Trump on Tuesday to recommend the former law clerk for a job with the administration.

Alito said he did not discuss Trump’s appeal or any other matters that may come before the court during the call.

But Gabe Roth, executive director of Fix the Court, a group that has long advocated for stricter ethics standards at the Supreme Court, said the private discussion was a breach of protocol.

“The phone call,” Roth said, “was just an excuse for Trump to talk to one of the nine people who will decide the fate of his monetary sentence in the coming days and who will review many other issues related to Trump over the next four years.”

Government watchdog group Accountable.US called on Alito to recuse himself from considering Trump’s request, as did Rep.

This article first appeared in USA TODAY: Supreme Court clears way for Trump’s criminal conviction in hush money case.