The Manhattan-based judge overseeing Donald Trump’s sentencing for his ‘hush money’ trial conviction has responded to the president-elect’s team following a late-Monday filing ahead of a Friday sentencing date. Judge Juan Merchan denied President-elect Donald Trump’s request to postpone his sentencing hearing, which is scheduled for Friday, January 10. This decision represents another key moment in Trump’s ongoing legal challenges just days before his inauguration.
In a filing made public earlier on Monday, Trump’s attorneys argued that the court should vacate the sentencing hearing and suspend all deadlines until appeals regarding presidential immunity are resolved. They contended that presidential immunity extends into the transition period, shielding Trump not only from liability but also from the legal process itself. The appeal requested that the hearing be rescheduled for January 27, one week after Trump’s inauguration.
Merchan, however, rejected the request in a swift ruling later that evening, “This Court has considered Defendant’s arguments in support of his motion and finds that they are for the most part, a repetition of the arguments he has raised numerous times in the past,” wrote Merchan according to NBC News.
Trump’s legal team’s primary argument centers on the constitutional protections afforded to a sitting president. They contend that the president-elect’s immunity during his first term, per a U.S. Supreme Court ruling last summer, prevented the use of evidence related to official conduct before the grand jury, which they argue tainted both the indictment and the subsequent jury verdict. Additionally, they maintain that immunity during the transition period requires a pause in legal proceedings until the appeals are fully resolved.
The defense also referenced New York legal precedents, arguing that criminal cases are typically stayed when appeals challenge a lower court’s jurisdiction. While New York law allows such stays to be discretionary, Trump’s attorneys argued that denying a stay for the president-elect would be both unprecedented and improper. This decision could compel Trump’s team to escalate their appeal, potentially bringing the case before the New York appellate court, the state’s highest court, or even the Supreme Court.
Legal analyst Margot Cleveland pointed out that Merchan’s decision leaves Trump’s legal team with limited options. “If he denies the stay or delays a decision too long, Trump’s team will need to seek a stay from the New York appellate court, then New York’s highest court, and finally, the U.S. Supreme Court,” Cleveland wrote on X.
Trump’s attorneys argue that the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution requires an automatic stay, effectively halting proceedings while appeals are ongoing. This argument is based on past cases where courts have paused legal processes to preserve the benefits of immunity. Additionally, the defense’s appeal underscores a wider debate about the balance between executive privilege and judicial oversight.
Cleveland speculated that Merchan’s decision might prompt a higher court to step in. “I think there are very few folks with an appetite to continue with lawfare after Trump’s win of both the electoral college and the popular vote,” she stated.
Disclaimer: This article may contain commentary which reflects the author’s opinion.