U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to his supporters at Save America Rally on the Ellipse near the White House in Washington on January 6, 2021 Photo by Yuri Gripas/Abaca/Sipa USA (Sipa via AP Images).
Donald Trump is imploring the U.S. Supreme Court to step in and halt Friday’s sentencing hearing in his criminal hush-money case out of New York, arguing that a president-elect is entitled to the same prosecutorial immunity as a sitting president.
In a 51-page application submitted Wednesday morning, Trump’s attorney D. John Sauer argued that the judge presiding over the hush-money trial was incorrect in refusing to vacate his 34 felony convictions and dismiss the case against him after he won the 2024 presidential election, claiming that the immunity granted to a sitting president via last year’s landmark Supreme Court ruling extends into the transition period following an election.
“President Trump noted that, upon his inauguration as the 47th President of the United States on January 20, 2025, he will be completely immune from all criminal process, state or federal,” the filing states. “President Trump also stated that the doctrine of sitting-President immunity shields him from criminal process during the brief but crucial period of Presidential transition, while he engages in the extraordinarily demanding task of preparing to assume the Executive power of the United States.”
Wednesday’s filing comes one day after an appellate court judge in New York refused Trump’s request to delay the proceedings indefinitely.
As he has already repeatedly done, Trump used the opportunity to malign Acting New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan, the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, and his former fixer Michael Cohen, claiming the entire case against the president-elect was political theater.
“The commencement of President Trump’s interlocutory appeal raising claims of Presidential immunity causes an automatic stay of proceedings in the trial court under Trump v. United States and related case law,” the filing states. “This appeal will ultimately result in the dismissal of the District Attorney’s politically motivated prosecution that was flawed from the very beginning, centered around the wrongful actions and false claims of a disgraced, disbarred serial-liar former attorney, violated President Trump’s due process rights, and had no merit.”
Sauer also asserted that Friday’s sentencing hearing should be immediately and automatically stayed pending the outcome of his appeal.
“In the meantime, the New York trial court lacks authority to impose sentence and judgment on President Trump — or conduct any further criminal proceedings against him — until the resolution of his underlying appeal raising substantial claims of Presidential immunity, including by review in this Court if necessary,” the filings states.
As Law&Crime previously reported, New York First Department Court of Appeals Associate Justice Ellen Gesmer on Tuesday afternoon was not swayed by the same assertions during oral arguments.
“Do you have any support for the notion that presidential immunity extends to presidents-elect?” Gesmer reportedly asked Trump’s attorney Todd Blanche.
“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.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who oversees applications in the Second Circuit, ordered the district attorney’s office to respond to Trump’s petition by 10 a.m. Thursday.
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 earlier this week.
