Trump Rushes to U.S. Supreme Court

President Donald Trump has filed an emergency petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, requesting the Justices to stop Judge Juan Merchan from issuing a sentence in the New York conviction. Trump’s petition is based on the Justices’ ruling on presidential immunity for “official acts” taken while in office. Also, since the President’s interlocutory appeal is ongoing, he shouldn’t be sentenced until that appeal process is exhausted.

Trump’s sentencing is scheduled for Friday, so a decision could come from the Supreme Court at any time after Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg’s response. Bragg has until 10 a.m. on Thursday to file a response. Typically, the Supreme Court likes to stay out of state issues. Yet, while Trump’s case is not federal, the Justices’ presidential immunity ruling is being tested.

Justice Sotomayor, who has been assigned to the case, is unlikely to rule in favor of Donald Trump. She will likely refer it to the full panel of Justices to decide.

ACLJ Senior Counsel and Director of Policy Harry Hutchison reacted to Trump’s emergency petition to the Supreme Court:            

The Supreme Court is unlikely to take an appeal in a low-ranking felony matter where there is no sentencing or at least custodial sentencing contemplated by the judge. However, the big issue for the Supreme Court in terms of its own legacy is whether or not it will uphold its earlier decision granting Presidents immunity for official acts. . . . [Also,] it’s important to keep in mind that this is an interlocutory appeal. In other words, the state courts haven’t finished their decision-making, and they’re unlikely to finish their decision-making in this particular case, in my judgment, for months. And so the Supreme Court will indeed have an incentive to stay out. Lastly, . . . Alan Dershowitz argues, however, that many of the liberal members of the Supreme Court may wish to step in and end this lawfare once and for all so Americans can proceed with their business, which is basically the inauguration of Donald Trump on January 20, and he can move forward with a clean slate.

The Supreme Court has several options regarding this case. Unfortunately, the easy way out would be for the Justices to sit on their hands and do nothing. However, since this case involves the U.S. President and their own decision-making, the Justices should weigh in and stop the far Left’s political prosecution of Trump.

The ACLJ also has a major new pro-life case. We are representing a client who was cited and is being tried criminally for disorderly conduct after he used a megaphone to share pro-life messaging outside an abortion clinic in Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio.

Outside the clinic, our client and his wife were met with hostility. Several clinic escorts tried to drown out our client’s constitutionally protected speech. Despite the disruptive tactics of the abortion escorts, our clients remained on the public sidewalk, never encroaching on the abortion clinic property or its visitors.

Our client tried to talk to the abortion escorts about how abortion had affected his family. He received cruel responses, including vulgar threats and taunts from the abortion escorts. Eventually, the police intervened, detaining our client and issuing a criminal citation for violation of an unconstitutional noise ordinance. At the same time, the police ignored the loud and vulgar taunts of the abortion escorts.

The police cited our client under an ordinance that bans the amplification of certain viewpoints in public but exempts others, like “outdoor musical or theatrical performances or concerts . . . by any educational, charitable, governmental or religious organization.”

However, everyone has a right to be heard, and the government cannot choose which voices get to be heard based on political preferences. The Supreme Court made it clear in Citizens United: “Prohibited, too, are restrictions distinguishing among different speakers, allowing speech by some but not others.” (Emphasis added.)

No one should face selective prosecution for their political opinion. Not only is it unconstitutional, but as we have seen here, selective ordinances like this can quickly be weaponized against heroes advocating for the unborn. We are defending our client to ensure he and his wife remain free to continue spreading their lifesaving message.

Today’s Sekulow broadcast included a full analysis of President Trump’s emergency petition to the U.S. Supreme Court. ACLJ Attorney Elgine McArdle shared with us about the ACLJ’s fight to protect pro-life advocates.

Watch the full broadcast below: