President-elect Donald Trump faces sentencing in the New York criminal hush money case just ten days before his inauguration as the 47th President of the United States. Judge Juan Merchan, who presided over the Manhattan trial, denied Trump’s motion to overturn his conviction, rejecting his argument that the Supreme Court’s recent presidential immunity ruling nullified the verdict.
The case centers on allegations that Trump falsified business records related to hush money payments. Brought by the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office under Alvin Bragg, the charges resulted in Trump’s conviction on 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree after a six-week trial. Trump’s legal team had sought to dismiss the case, citing the Supreme Court’s immunity decision, which affirms substantial protections for former presidents regarding official acts performed while in office.
However, Judge Merchan ruled that the charges against Trump were tied to his private conduct and thus not covered by immunity protections.
“The evidence and charges presented are connected to Mr. Trump’s unofficial actions, which are not shielded by the Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity,” Merchan stated in his decision.
The sentencing is scheduled for January 10 at 9:30 a.m., where Trump has the option to appear either in person or virtually. While Merchan clarified that he does not intend to impose incarceration, he suggested an “unconditional discharge,” meaning Trump would face no additional penalties.
This decision has drawn sharp criticism from Trump’s spokesperson and incoming White House Communications Director, Steven Cheung, who described the case as a “direct violation of the Supreme Court’s immunity decision.”
“This lawless case should have never been brought,” Cheung said. “The Constitution demands that it be immediately dismissed. President Trump will continue fighting against these hoaxes until they are all dead.”
The case stems from an investigation that began under former Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance and was later pursued by Alvin Bragg. Prosecutors alleged that Trump falsified business records to cover up hush money payments made during the 2016 presidential campaign. Despite pleading not guilty and denying the charges throughout the trial, the jury found Trump guilty on all counts.
Trump’s attorneys have maintained that the charges were politically motivated, aimed at undermining Trump’s return to the presidency following his November 2024 election victory. In their July motion to overturn the conviction, they argued that the Supreme Court’s immunity decision should apply, asserting that evidence related to Trump’s “official acts” should have been inadmissible.
“Wrongly continuing proceedings in this failed lawfare case disrupts President Trump’s transition efforts and his preparations to wield the full Article II executive power authorized by the Constitution,” the legal team argued.
They also pointed to Department of Justice guidelines that prohibit federal indictment of a sitting president, suggesting that the case’s timing and persistence were part of a politically charged agenda.
The Manhattan District Attorney’s Office has pushed back against these claims, asserting that the charges and evidence are firmly rooted in Trump’s private actions. Bragg had initially proposed delaying proceedings until the conclusion of Trump’s second term, but Trump’s attorneys rejected this suggestion.
While Judge Merchan reviews additional motions filed by Trump’s defense team, the sentencing remains on schedule. Steven Cheung emphasized the distraction the case poses to Trump’s transition efforts, stating that it hinders preparations for his upcoming inauguration.
The timing of the sentencing, so close to Trump’s return to the presidency, has sparked intense debate about the intersection of politics and the judiciary. Supporters argue that the case demonstrates accountability for all individuals, regardless of status, while critics see it as a politically motivated effort to undermine Trump’s presidency.
As the nation awaits the January 10 sentencing, the case underscores the complexities of holding a former president accountable while navigating the political fallout. Trump’s legal battles and his impending inauguration set the stage for a tumultuous start to his second term.
Regardless of the outcome, the case has amplified discussions about presidential immunity, the politicization of the legal system, and the challenges of balancing justice with political transitions. As Trump prepares to take the oath of office on January 20, the nation will continue to grapple with the implications of this unprecedented legal drama.
