Divided Supreme Court clears way for Trump's criminal sentencing in NY hush money case

WASHINGTON ? A divided Supreme Court on Thursday rejected President-elect Donald Trump's request to block Friday's sentencing in his New York hush-money criminal case, guaranteeing that Trump will carry the label "convicted felon" when he returns to the White House.

In the first test of how receptive the court may be to the incoming president, four of the court's six conservative members ? Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh ? said they would have granted Trump's emergency application.

Prosecutors had called it an "extraordinary" request.

Trump wanted to leapfrog over the normal appeals process, arguing that the “burden, disruption, stigma, and distraction” of the sentencing is too intrusive on his preparations for returning to the White House on Jan. 20.

That’s despite the fact that his sentencing had been delayed until after the election at Trump’s request. And New York Judge Juan Merchan has already indicated the president-elect won’t get prison time, a fine or probation while his appeals continue.

In a 5-4 decision, the court’s majority said that makes the sentencing’s burden on the president-elect responsibilities “relatively insubstantial.”

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the court's three liberals in making that decision.

Instead of lashing out at the justices who sided against him, Trump emphasized that the majority noted he's not getting jail time or probation, and can still appeal his conviction.

"I read it and I thought it was a fair decision, actually," Trump told reporters. "So I’ll do my little thing tomorrow. They can have fun with their political opponent."

Trump was convicted in May of 34 counts of falsifying business records to hide payments to a porn actress. Trump paid his former lawyer, Michael Cohen, who in turn paid adult film star Stormy Daniels to remain silent before the 2016 election about an alleged sexual encounter.

Trump is trying to dismiss the case by arguing that the Supreme Court’s ruling last year on presidential immunity means evidence used in the trial was improper.

His lawyers have also said the decision shielding sitting presidents from criminal charges for official acts while in office extends to the transition period between an election and inauguration.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office called that an unprecedented claim.

“Non-employees of the government do not exercise any official function that would be impaired by the conclusion of a criminal case against a private citizen for private conduct,” his office told the Supreme Court.

Prosecutors also said there’s no basis for the justices intervening in a state criminal trial before an appeals court has reviewed Trump’s conviction.

The court's majority said Trump can raise his claims about improper evidence "in the ordinary course on appeal."

Trump’s request was an early litmus test for how the justices will approach the second Trump administration, Georgetown law professor Stephen Vladeck wrote on Substack.

Vladeck said Trump’s emergency request was a “relatively low-cost opportunity for the Court to show a modicum of independence from Trump on the eve of his return to office” at a time when Republicans control all three branches of government.

That signal may have become more important to send after Justice Samuel Alito acknowledged this week that he’d spoken to Trump on Tuesday to recommend a former law clerk for a job in the administration.

Alito said he didn’t discuss Trump’s appeal or any other matters that might come before the court during their phone call.

But Gabe Roth, executive director of Fix the Court, a group that has long advocated for tighter ethics standards at the Supreme Court, said the private conversation was a breach in protocol.

“The call,” Roth said, “was merely an excuse for Trump to speak with one of the nine people determining the fate of his hush money sentencing in the coming days and who will review many more Trump-related issues over the next four years.”

The government watchdog group Accountable.US called on Alito to recuse himself from considering Trump's appeal, as did Maryland Rep. Jamie Raskin, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee.

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Supreme Court clears way for Trump's criminal sentencing in hush money case