Judge Orders Trump To Be Sentenced Before Inauguration
Judge Juan Merchan has ordered President-elect Donald Trump to appear for sentencing in the New York hush money case on January 10, 2025—just 10 days before he is set to take the oath of office as the 47th President of the United States. The judge’s decision allows for a virtual appearance, ensuring Trump can continue preparing for his presidential duties without interruption.
This unprecedented ruling comes after months of legal wrangling and contentious debates over whether a sitting or incoming president should face sentencing in a state court case. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg had argued for further delays, suggesting that sentencing be postponed indefinitely during Trump’s presidency. However, Judge Merchan dismissed these arguments, stating the case requires closure to uphold the sanctity of the judicial process.
The case stems from Trump’s May 2024 conviction on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related to alleged hush money payments during the 2016 election. Trump’s defense team had filed numerous motions challenging the verdict, citing “unlawful” conduct by the prosecution and procedural violations. However, Judge Merchan reaffirmed the jury’s unanimous verdict, claiming the importance of respecting the rule of law.
In his ruling, Merchan addressed the concerns raised by Trump’s team, including claims of presidential immunity and the pressures of the transition period. “The sanctity of a jury verdict and the deference that must be accorded to it, is a bedrock principle in our Nation’s jurisprudence,” the judge stated. “This Court finds that Presidential immunity from criminal process for a sitting president does not extend to a President-elect.”
Merchan continued, “While this Court as a matter of law must not make any determination on sentencing prior to giving the parties and Defendants opportunity to be heard, it seems proper at this juncture to make known the Court’s inclination to not impose any sentence of incarceration, a sentence authorized by the conviction but one the People concede they no longer view as a practicable recommendation.”
“To dismiss the indictment and set aside the jury verdict would not serve the concerns set forth by the Supreme Court in its handful of cases addressing Presidential immunity nor would it serve the Rule of Law.”
Bragg’s request to suspend sentencing until after Trump’s presidency was rejected outright. The DA’s alternative proposal to hold the proceedings in limbo without formally dismissing the case was also declined. Critics have called Bragg’s approach a “partisan stunt.”
On May 30 last year, Trump was convicted on all 34 counts of felony for falsifying business records. The charges originated from undisclosed payments during his 2016 campaign, aimed at quelling rumors of unproven, alleged affairs, including a notable $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels, an adult film star. The conviction was unprecedented, marking the first criminal conviction of a former U.S. president.
Trump’s sentencing will occur just 10 days before his inauguration, an unprecedented timeline in American history.
