New York, Jan. 7 — A New York appeals court judge on Tuesday rejected President-elect Donald Trump’s latest attempt to delay his sentencing in a hush money case, setting the stage for the historic proceeding to take place as scheduled this Friday.

In a one-sentence ruling issued after an emergency hearing, Judge Ellen Gesmer denied Trump’s request for an immediate order to halt the sentencing while he appeals Judge Juan M. Merchan’s recent decision upholding his conviction. This marks the second legal setback for Trump in as many days after Merchan rejected a similar bid to indefinitely postpone the sentencing.

Despite these rulings, Trump retains the option to seek intervention from higher courts before the sentencing date.

At the heart of the case is Trump’s argument that, as president-elect, he enjoys the same immunity from criminal proceedings as a sitting president. Trump’s lawyer, Todd Blanche, reiterated this position during Tuesday’s hearing, calling the sentencing during the presidential transition “unconstitutional” and a potential disruption to the incoming administration.

However, Manhattan prosecutors, represented by Steven Wu, have countered this claim, emphasizing the principle of “one president at a time” and the importance of bringing finality to criminal proceedings.

Trump, convicted last May on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records, could face a range of penalties, including a fine, probation, or up to four years in prison. The charges stem from allegations that Trump orchestrated a scheme to conceal a hush money payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels during his 2016 presidential campaign. Trump has denied Daniels’ allegations and maintained his innocence throughout the trial.

Judge Merchan, in a ruling last week, rejected Trump’s plea to dismiss the case on the grounds of presidential immunity, stating that Trump’s current status as president-elect does not exempt him from criminal sentencing. Merchan has indicated a willingness to accommodate the presidential transition by allowing Trump to appear at Friday’s sentencing virtually, rather than in person.

Blanche has signaled intentions to challenge Merchan’s rulings further, potentially escalating the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. The defense has also raised concerns about the implications of the Supreme Court’s previous ruling granting sitting presidents broad immunity from prosecution, arguing that similar protections should extend to a president-elect during the transition period.

Manhattan prosecutors have urged the court to proceed with sentencing as scheduled, citing the public interest in concluding the case promptly.

As Trump prepares for his second inauguration on Jan. 20, his legal challenges remain unprecedented. If sentenced before taking office, Trump would become the first U.S. president to enter the White House with a criminal conviction.

Judge Merchan has suggested that an unconditional discharge — a resolution without jail time, fines, or probation — might be appropriate given the circumstances. However, Trump’s defense team continues to argue for dismissal of the conviction entirely.

The outcome of Friday’s proceedings could set a significant precedent for the legal boundaries of presidential immunity and the accountability of public officials.

Credit: Associated Press