Donald Trump speaks at the annual Road to Majority conference in Washington, DC, June 22, 2024. (Allison Bailey/NurPhoto via AP)
An appeals court in New York has rejected Donald Trump’s latest bid to postpone this Friday’s sentencing hearing in his criminal hush-money case, marking the latest blow in the president-elect’s fight to have the case against him dismissed before he takes office later this month.
“After consideration of the papers submitted and the extensive oral argument, movant’s application for an interim stay is denied,” New York First Department Court of Appeals Associate Justice Ellen Gesmer wrote in a brief order following an emergency hearing on Tuesday.
The hearing was held after Trump on Monday asked Acting New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan to delay the sentencing hearing while he sought reversal of the judge’s decision not to throw out the case based on landmark Supreme Court jurisprudence granting sitting presidents broad immunity from prosecution for official acts taken while in office.
In a 17-page filing, Trump’s attorney Todd Blanche wrote that he was challenging Merchan’s Dec. 16 order rejecting Trump’s claim of “presidential immunity based on evidentiary use of official acts,” as well as Merchan’s Jan. 3 order denying Trump’s motion to dismiss based on his “claim of sitting-presidential immunity as extended into the transitional period while Trump is President-elect.” He also claimed that filing the appeal should trigger an immediate and automatic stay of the proceedings.
Merchan responded later in the day Monday, denying Trump’s motion and saying that the president-elect’s filing was “for the most part, a repetition of the arguments he has raised numerous times in the past.” In his denial, Merchan appeared to be unmoved by Trump’s arguments.
“This Court finds that the authorities relied upon in the motion by the Defendant are for the most part, factually distinguishable from the actual record or legally inapplicable,” Merchan wrote.
Also on Monday, Trump’s attorneys filed a notice of appeal, reiterating the claim that Merchan’s ruling — that presidential immunity does not extend to the president-elect — was erroneous and should be reversed.
“Justice Merchan’s erroneous decisions threaten the institution of the Presidency and run squarely against established precedent disallowing any criminal process against a President-Elect, as well as prohibiting the use of evidence of a President’s official acts against him in a criminal proceeding,” the appeal stated.
From the outset of Tuesday’s emergency hearing, Gesmer appeared to signal that Trump’s appeal was not going to be successful as she did not appear receptive to Blanche’s argument regarding presidential immunity for the president-elect, according to a report from Courthouse News.
“Do you have any support for the notion that presidential immunity extends to presidents-elect?” Gesmer reportedly asked.
“There has never been any case like this before, so no,” Blanche, who Trump has already named as his deputy attorney general, reportedly replied.
Steven Wu, from the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, reportedly jumped on that point.
“The claim is so baseless that there is no support for an automatic stay here,” Wu said. “Defense counsel has not cited any case … that supports the idea that a president-elect has the same immunity as a sitting president.”
Gesmer also rejected arguments about the sentencing being so close to Trump’s inauguration, reportedly explaining to Blanche that Merchan repeatedly delayed the hearing at Trump’s own request.
While Friday’s sentencing hearing is becoming more of a reality for Trump, Merchan has already signaled that he is likely to let the president-elect off the hook with no meaningful legal consequences and will allow Trump to appear remotely due to the rigors of the presidential transition period.
“While this Court as a matter of law must not make any determination on sentencing prior to giving the parties and Defendant an opportunity to be heard, it seems proper at this juncture to make known the Court’s inclination to not impose any sentence of incarceration, a sentence authorized by the conviction but one the People concede they no longer view as a practicable recommendation,” Merchan wrote.
