U.S. Supreme Court declines to block Trump's New York hush money sentencing

Trump's Friday morning sentencing in the New York state hush money case, allowing the historic proceeding to go forward over dissent from four Republican-appointed justices.

Justice Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh signaled they would have ruled in favor of Trump.

The court revealed its reasoning for refusing to support Trump:

First, the possible violations of the rules of evidence in President-Elect Trump's state-court trial will be reviewed on appeal, like in most cases. Second, the impact of the sentence on the President-Elect's duties will be minimal since the judge has made it clear that they will probably only sentence him to "unconditional discharge" after a short virtual hearing.

At a trial last year, he was charged with falsifying business records in connection with a hush money scheme related to the 2016 election. This is the only one of the four times Trump was prosecuted that went to trial.

I can't paraphrase this text. This conversation has only just begun.

The justices were asked "to take the unusual step of interfering with an ongoing state criminal trial before the conviction has been finalized, and before any appeals can be made." The prosecution argued that there was "no reason for such involvement."

Put the current date back to Friday while rejecting Trump's attempt to get the case dismissed before sentencing.

appointed by Trump, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon.

The prosecutor who brought the case should be disqualified, which puts the case's fate up in the air although it doesn't put it out of the question for good. Presidents can't pardon federal cases or have them dismissed, but they can for state ones.

Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter For in-depth analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and latest developments in cases involving former President Donald Trump.

This article was originally published on