Surprise! SCOTUS Will Not Save Trump On Hush Money Case

January 9, 2025
NEW YORK, NEW YORK - MAY 30: Former U.S. President Donald Trump sits at the defendant's table inside the courthouse as the jury is scheduled to continue deliberations for his hush money trial at Manhattan Criminal C... NEW YORK, NEW YORK - MAY 30: Former U.S. President Donald Trump sits at the defendant's table inside the courthouse as the jury is scheduled to continue deliberations for his hush money trial at Manhattan Criminal Court on May 30, 2024 in New York City. Judge Juan Merchan gave the jury instructions, and deliberations are entering their second day. The former president faces 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in the first of his criminal cases to go to trial. (Photo by Justin Lane - Pool/Getty Images) MORE LESS
|
January 9, 2025

The Supreme Court will not intervene in Donald Trump’s New York hush money case. At least, not before his sentencing goes forward on Friday morning.

Trump filed a last-ditch brief with the Supreme Court on Wednesday, asking the justices to intervene and block his sentencing. On Thursday night, in a 5-4 decision, the justices said no.

With less than two weeks until he’s inaugurated, Trump has been moving to put an end to the last remnants of the various criminal cases brought against him over the past several years.

In a separate case, the incoming president is trying to prevent Special Counsel Jack Smith from releasing a report concluding his investigation. The report contains one volume covering the Jan. 6 investigation, and a second volume about the Mar-a-Lago classified records case. A ruling from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals late Thursday denied a bid by Trump’s former co-defendants to block the report, which could emerge in the next few days — but this issue, too, is likely first headed to the Supreme Court.

We’ll be following below.

More Less

The Supreme Court will not intervene in Donald Trump’s New York hush money case. At least, not before his sentencing goes forward on Friday morning.

Trump filed a last-ditch brief with the Supreme Court on Wednesday, asking the justices to intervene and block his sentencing. On Thursday night, in a 5-4 decision, the justices said no.

With less than two weeks until he’s inaugurated, Trump has been moving to put an end to the last remnants of the various criminal cases brought against him over the past several years.

In a separate case, the incoming president is trying to prevent Special Counsel Jack Smith from releasing a report concluding his investigation. The report contains one volume covering the Jan. 6 investigation, and a second volume about the Mar-a-Lago classified records case. A ruling from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals late Thursday denied a bid by Trump’s former co-defendants to block the report, which could emerge in the next few days — but this issue, too, is likely first headed to the Supreme Court.

We’ll be following below.

129
Show Comments

Notable Replies

  1. I’ll make it easy; he is not yet President. Until he is inaugurated, he is President-elect. So What? I would hope that this gets laughed out of conference. If they do take the case, you can bet your bottom dollar they will take his side. Bought and paid for.

  2. “It’s a Hail Mary argument that essentially asks the high court to declare that there are two presidents at once.” Oh yeah?
    Tomorrow: SCOTUS rules that there will be no sentencing as Trump is covered by Presidential immunity.
    The day after: Aileen Cannon issues a ruling that Biden is no longer president. Her reasoning? This town ain’t big enough for the two of 'em.

    And the day after that:

    (I know I posted this yesterday, but, let’s face it, this one deserves a workout.)

  3. Trying to shoehorn the witness testimony into an immunity argument after the trial has already been conducted is kind of clever, but kind of also like trying to stuff the water back into the balloon after it’s already burst.

    SCOTUS took the immunity case because (it said) the immunity stuff had to be determined before the trial went forward. Well, trump let this trial go forward without attempting to pre-determine the admissibility of witness testimony under his malignant theory of presidential immunity. Too bad, so sad, you let it slide. Take it up on appeal after sentencing.

    Prediction: SCOTUS denies relief tomorrow afternoon. They have no institutional interest in saving trump from this nothingburger proceeding.

  4. “It’s a Hail Mary argument that essentially asks the high court to declare that there are two presidents at once.”

    Schrödinger’s POTUS™.

  5. Avatar for davcbr davcbr says:

    Well… It seems that despite my many accusations, Joe Biden has not committed, let alone convicted of any crimes. Therefore, I, considering my recent history, am entitled to use Joe Biden’s unused immunity.

Continue the discussion at forums.talkingpointsmemo.com

123 more replies

Participants

Avatar for fgs Avatar for mondfledermaus Avatar for sysprog Avatar for eggrollian Avatar for globalguy Avatar for brutus1910 Avatar for becca656 Avatar for inversion Avatar for dont Avatar for stradivarius50t3 Avatar for leftcoaster Avatar for generalsternwood Avatar for commanderogg Avatar for darrtown Avatar for nobiru Avatar for known_thespian Avatar for rickjones Avatar for tmulcaire Avatar for brian512 Avatar for coimmigrant Avatar for yiprock Avatar for txlawyer Avatar for thomaspaine Avatar for IBecameACitizenforthis

Continue Discussion
Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Deputy Editor:
Editor at Large:
General Counsel:
Publisher:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Associate Publisher:
Front End Developer:
Senior Designer: