Supreme Court turns away Missouri’s long-shot attempt at halting Trump’s criminal sentencing
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to consider Missouri’s long-shot bid to block former President Trump’s criminal sentencing and gag order in his hush money case.
In a brief order, the justices turned away Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey’s (R) attempt to go straight to the high court by invoking its exclusive, original jurisdiction over disputes between two states — Bailey’s state directly sued New York.
Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, two of the court’s leading conservatives, said they would’ve allowed Missouri to file the suit but “would not grant other relief.” No other justice publicly dissented.
The duo provided no explanation Monday, but Thomas and Alito in years past have repeatedly opined that the Supreme Court doesn't have discretion in deciding whether to take up cases that invoke its original jurisdiction.
Bailey’s long-shot attempt sought to block Trump’s Sept. 18 sentencing and gag order in his hush money case until after the presidential election. Trump was convicted in May on all 34 counts of falsifying business records in connection with a hush money deal during his 2016 campaign, marking the first-ever criminal conviction of a former U.S. president.
He has vowed to appeal, but Trump is first slated to be sentenced just weeks before the election, unless his trial judge tosses the verdict because of the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity decision. Bailey accused New York of violating Missourians’ First Amendment rights and interfering with the presidential election in the state.
By suing the state directly, Bailey forced New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) to defend Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s (D) prosecution of the former president.
James’s office told the justices to turn away the suit, criticizing it for containing “bare assertions of bad faith” and arguing it wasn’t an actual controversy between two states.
Though James was not involved in Trump’s criminal case, she is a visible foe for the former president, having taken him to civil trial and winning hundreds of millions of dollars in damages over accusations of fraud earlier this year.
"It’s disappointing that the Supreme Court refused to exercise its constitutional responsibility to resolve state v. state disputes," Bailey wrote on the social platform X, vowing to continue to "prosecute our lawsuit."
The Hill has reached out to James’s office for comment.
The Supreme Court’s order on Monday comes one day before Missouri’s primary, in which Bailey is facing a challenge from one of Trump’s own attorneys.
Will Scharf, an appellate attorney for the former president who does not represent him in the hush money case but did attend portions of the recent trial, is hoping to win the Republican nomination Tuesday.