By a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court handed a largely symbolic, but still politically significant, loss to President-elect Donald Trump on Thursday evening. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, both Republicans, voted with all three of the Court’s Democrats.
The Supreme Court hands Trump a loss in his bid for legal immunity
The Court’s order is exceedingly narrow, but it is still a loss for Trump.
Ian Millhiser is a senior correspondent at Vox, where he focuses on the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the decline of liberal democracy in the United States. He received a JD from Duke University and is the author of two books on the Supreme Court.
The case, known as Trump v. New York, involves Trump’s felony convictions for falsifying business records related to hush money payments Trump made to an adult actress. Trump was convicted on 34 felony charges last May, but he is not scheduled to be sentenced until Friday. Trump had asked the Supreme Court to halt that sentencing hearing, at least until higher courts hear his appeals claiming that his conviction violates a legal doctrine, newly established by the Supreme Court’s recent immunity ruling in favor of Trump, which gives former presidents broad but not limitless immunity from prosecution.
The actual stakes in this Supreme Court dispute were fairly low. Though Trump is about to be sentenced, the judge presiding over his criminal trial signaled that he would sentence Trump to “unconditional discharge,” meaning that Trump would not be punished with imprisonment, a fine, or probation even though he was found guilty. Still, Trump sought to halt the proceeding where he would have received this sentence.
In claiming such immunity, Trump relied heavily on the Court’s July decision in Trump v. United States. In that case, the six Republican justices held that Trump enjoys broad immunity from being prosecuted for any crimes he committed (or commits in the future) using the powers of the presidency.
The newer case, by contrast, involves criminal activity that Trump engaged in before he was elected president. Nevertheless, Trump claimed that the July decision required the courts to halt the sentencing hearing — among other things, Trump’s lawyers argued that his New York convictions are invalid because the trial included testimony from some of Trump’s former presidential aides, and arguably involved official business.
In ruling against Trump, the five justices in the majority emphasized that they were doing so in large part because the stakes in the New York case are so low. In a single-paragraph order, the Court revealed that it decided to say out of the case for now because “the alleged evidentiary violations at President-Elect Trump’s state-court trial can be addressed in the ordinary course on appeal,” and because Trump faces a minimal burden because the trial judge intends to give him such a light sentence.
Nothing in the Court’s order prevents it from getting involved in this case after it is heard by other appeals courts. The Supreme Court is merely staying its hand for the time being.
It is notable, however, that even in this low-stakes dispute, four justices dissented. That suggests there is strong support within the Court for reading the July immunity decision very broadly. And, of course, if any one of the five justices in the majority should flip their vote, Trump will prevail the next time this dispute arrives on the Supreme Court’s doorstep.
