A New York judge announced on Friday that sentencing in former President Donald Trump’s hush money case will not take place this month, leaving the matter unresolved as both sides prepare to address unprecedented legal and constitutional challenges.
The case stems from Trump’s conviction in May on 34 counts of falsifying business records. The charges relate to $130,000 in payments made to adult film actor Stormy Daniels during the final days of the 2016 presidential campaign to silence claims of an alleged affair, which Trump denies.
Originally set for November 26, the sentencing has been delayed indefinitely as Judge Juan M. Merchan requested additional submissions from both the prosecution and the defense. The submissions, due over the next two-and-a-half weeks, will focus on how the case should proceed given Trump’s upcoming inauguration on January 20.
Legal Uncertainty Surrounding a President-Elect
The case presents an unprecedented legal conundrum: a president-elect facing criminal sentencing before assuming office. Trump’s legal team is seeking an outright dismissal of the case, arguing that proceeding further would impede his presidential duties.
“Continuing this case undermines the responsibilities and obligations of the presidency,” said Steven Cheung, Trump’s spokesperson and incoming White House communications director, who described the judge’s decision as “a decisive win” for the president-elect.
Prosecutors, led by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, have taken a different stance. While expressing willingness to put the case on hold during Trump’s time in office, they insist the charges and May conviction must not be dismissed. Bragg emphasized the need to balance the constitutional role of the presidency with “the sanctity of the jury verdict.”
Background of the Hush Money Case
The criminal charges against Trump revolve around efforts to conceal the purpose of the payments to Daniels, which were facilitated through his then-lawyer. Prosecutors allege that the falsified records were part of a broader scheme to shield Trump’s 2016 campaign from damaging allegations.
Trump has consistently denied any wrongdoing, maintaining that the payments were a private matter unrelated to his political activities. He has also denied Daniels’ claims of a decade-old affair.
What Comes Next
Judge Merchan’s decision leaves the next steps in the case uncertain. Legal experts are closely watching how the court balances Trump’s constitutional immunity as an incoming president with the precedent set by his conviction.
The delay underscores the complexity of prosecuting a high-profile political figure and signals that this case, like much of Trump’s political career, will likely remain the subject of intense legal and public scrutiny.
