Hush money trial I Supreme Court rejects Trump’s urgent application

Hush money trial

Supreme Court rejects urgent application – Trump is convicted

The Supreme Court has decided in Washington: The sentencing against Donald Trump planned for Friday can take place.

The sentencing of future US President Donald Trump in the New York hush money trial can take place as planned this Friday. The Supreme Court decided this with five votes to four in the US capital Washington, thereby rejecting an urgent application from Trump’s lawyers. The decision is a major defeat for the 78-year-old.

Trump wanted to do everything in his power to prevent the announcement from happening on Friday – ten days before the Republican was sworn in again as president. Before he turned to the Supreme Court, the Republican had already failed with corresponding requests at lower courts. However, the sentence announcement is unlikely to have a direct impact on Trump’s presidency – it is more of a symbolic nature.

The chief justices were divided: four conservative justices – Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh – would have granted the request, while the court’s five-judge majority rejected it. The decision was also justified by the fact that the sentence was “relatively irrelevant” to Trump’s duties as future president.

Last week, the judge in charge had already announced the prospect of an “unconditional discharge”. This form of sentencing would not result in any further criminal consequences such as imprisonment or a fine, but it would establish legal guilt – according to the jury’s guilty verdict.

The trial was about the illegal concealment of $130,000 in hush money that Trump had paid to the porn actress Stormy Daniels – according to the court’s conviction, with the aim of gaining advantages in the 2016 election campaign. Jurors in New York found Trump guilty on 34 counts in late May. It was the first time in United States history that a former president was convicted of a crime.

Trump believes the proceedings against him are unlawful and is also trying to overturn the guilty verdict. He cites a Supreme Court decision according to which US presidents enjoy extensive immunity for actions taken while in office. However, the New York judge declared in December that the decision did not apply in the present case because the disputed hush money payments were made before Trump’s first presidency from 2017 to 2021. Furthermore, these were acts as a private citizen.

The Supreme Court had also decided at the time that official acts of US presidents could not be used as evidence in criminal proceedings. The issue is likely to become an issue at the latest in an appeal process that could end up back in front of the Supreme Court. Trump shifted the majority on the Supreme Court far to the right during his first term. Only three of the nine judges are now assigned to the liberal camp. In this configuration, the court has often ruled in Trump’s favor.