By Ben Protess, Kate Christobek and Wesley Parnell
On Tuesday, a New York appellate court denied President-elect Donald Trump’s request to stop his criminal sentencing, undermining his aspirations to resolve the case prior to his return to the White House.
Trump, slated for sentencing on Friday, just 10 days before his inauguration for a second presidential term, sought intervention from the appeals court to halt the proceedings. His legal team maintained that Trump deserved complete immunity from prosecution and sentencing, now that he had been elected president.
The emergency motion was assigned to a single appellate court judge, Ellen Gesmer, who conducted a brief hearing on Tuesday before rejecting Trump’s plea 30 minutes later.
During the hearing, Gesmer expressed significant skepticism regarding Trump’s claims, questioning Trump’s attorney about any evidence supporting the idea that presidential immunity applies to president-elects.
Attorney Todd Blanche acknowledged his lack of support for that claim, stating, “There has never been a case like this before.”
When Blanche contended that Gesmer’s ruling relied on the immunity of an incumbent president, she interrupted with a clarification, emphasizing that Trump was currently a president-elect.
However, Gesmer may not have the final say. Trump can quickly move to federal court in an attempt to block the sentencing, and if necessary, could petition the Supreme Court for intervention.
For the moment, though, Gesmer’s determination has narrowed Trump’s route to success, heightening the likelihood that he will endure the discomfort of a criminal sentencing.
Should the sentencing proceed, it will largely be a symbolic gesture. The trial judge, Juan Merchan, indicated last week that he would likely not impose jail time or any severe punishment on Trump.
This leniency appeared to resonate with Gesmer, who underscored it in the hearing and inquired of Blanche why that should not be taken seriously.
Blanche, who was selected by Trump to serve as the deputy attorney general in his administration, declined to answer questions from the media as he exited the courthouse. A representative for the Manhattan district attorney’s office, which prosecuted Trump, chose not to comment.
Trump’s attempts to challenge the district attorney’s allegations will continue beyond the unsuccessful emergency petition.
This week, his legal team filed a challenge in the appeals court against Merchan, contesting his recent rulings affirming Trump’s conviction. This action, which may take weeks or months to resolve, coincided with Trump’s urgent plea for an emergency halt to the sentencing.
The dual approach signifies an assertive intensification of Trump’s legal strategy as he seeks to evade a public sentencing. Following his conviction by a New York jury in May on 34 felony counts related to falsifying records to conceal a sex scandal, Trump has vigorously contested the verdict on multiple fronts, including urging Merchan to dismiss the case and delay the sentencing.
This strategy reflects one of Trump’s preferred legal tactics: delay.
After being indicted across four different jurisdictions, Trump heavily relied on this approach, making various appeals and other filings to extend the timeline until Election Day.
When he won the election in November, this tactic proved effective: The federal special counsel responsible for two of those cases — one in Washington, D.C., and another in Florida — terminated them, citing a Justice Department policy against prosecuting sitting presidents. In Georgia, where Trump is alleged to have attempted to overturn the state’s 2020 election results, an appeals court disqualified the local prosecutor who initiated the case, causing an indefinite delay.
In New York, Merchan postponed the sentencing several times. Initially, he delayed it in July to consider Trump’s request to dismiss the case based on a recent Supreme Court ruling that granted presidents broad immunity for their official actions. The judge delayed it again in the fall to accommodate the presidential campaign, and following the election, Merchan paused the sentencing once more to evaluate the president-elect’s claim that his electoral win should invalidate the case.
On Tuesday, Gesmer referenced these delays and attributed the alleged time pressure — with the sentencing occurring so close to the inauguration — to Trump’s numerous legal maneuvers.
“Justice Merchan would have been pleased to postpone this sentencing back in July,” Gesmer stated.
