WASHINGTON —  The Supreme Court on Thursday turned down President-elect Donald Trump’s plea to block a New York judge from sentencing him Friday on his felony conviction in a hush-money case.

The vote was 5-4, with conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh saying they would have granted Trump’s request.

The decision means Trump will be the first president to have a felony on his record when he takes the oath of office on Jan. 20.

The majority in an unsigned opinion said Trump is still free to appeal his conviction later and said the sentencing hearing will not pose much of a burden, since he need not attend.

Trump’s lawyers filed an emergency appeal on Wednesday that rested on a thin claim of immunity.

Last year, the justices ruled that a president or ex-president was immune from criminal charges for his “official acts” while in office.

This week, Trump’s lawyers argued the justices should extend the immunity rule to shield the president-elect from being held accountable now for a private criminal scheme that began before his election as president.

A New York jury found Trump guilty of falsifying business records, a crime under New York law. He wrote checks to Michael Cohen, his former personal lawyer, to repay him for a $130,000 payment to an adult film star to buy her silence prior to the 2016 election. The payments were listed as legal expenses.

Jurors convicted him on 34 counts.

Trump’s trial lawyers urged Judge Juan Merchan to delay his sentencing until after the November election.

Once Trump won the election, they argued the incoming president had an immunity from all the pending criminal cases, including his felony conviction.

New York prosecutors had urged the court on Thursday to deny Trump’s “extraordinary immunity claim.”

“While he was a private citizen, defendant [Trump] was charged, tried, and convicted for conduct that he concedes is wholly unofficial,” they said. In his appeal, he “makes the unprecedented claim that the temporary presidential immunity he will possess in the future fully immunizes him now,” before he is sworn in as president again, they said.

On Tuesday, the day before his attorneys filed their emergency appeal in the high court, Trump arranged to speak with Alito about one of his former clerks. Alito confirmed the call to ABC News.

“William Levi, one of my former law clerks, asked me to take a call from President-elect Trump regarding [Levi’s] qualifications to serve in a government position,” Alito said. “I agreed to discuss this matter with President-elect Trump, and he called me yesterday afternoon.”

He said they did not discuss the “emergency application” regarding Trump’s New York sentencing, which had not been filed yet at the court.

“I was not even aware at the time of our conversation that such an application would be filed,” Alito said. “We also did not discuss any other matter that is pending or might in the future come before the Supreme Court or any past Supreme Court decisions involving the president-elect.”

Alito cast a vote in favor of Trump.

Congressional Republicans campaigned on border security last year. 

So it should be of little surprise that their initial legislative action of 2025 focused on illegal immigration and tightening up the border. 

One can argue about whether Congressional Republicans appropriated the murder of Georgia nursing student Laken Riley for political gain. The 22-year-old Riley went for a run last February and never returned. Jose Antonio Ibarra murdered Riley. He entered the country illegally from Venezuela.

“He bashed her head in with a rock. This is one of the most heinous crimes imaginable. People need to know what this animal did to her,” said Rep. Mike Collins, R-Ga., the main sponsor of the immigration bill.

SENATE DEMS TO JOIN REPUBLICANS TO ADVANCE ANTI-ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION BILL NAMED AFTER LAKEN RILEY

Republicans seized on the episode. To the right, the Laken Riley case symbolized everything which was wrong about the border and the Biden Administration. Days after Riley’s death last year, the House approved the Laken Riley Act. The bill requires federal detention for anyone in the country illegally who is arrested for shoplifting or theft. Republicans argued that Riley would be with us today had such a policy been in place to pick up Ibarra. 

It will take months for Congressional Republicans to get on the same page when it comes to President-elect Donald Trump’s demand for a combined “big, beautiful bill” on tax policy, federal spending and immigration. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., says the aim is to pass that reconciliation package in early April. 

Approving a border security package by itself would be challenging enough – and that’s to say nothing of the cost. So Congressional Republicans are targeting low-hanging fruit. Hence, the GOP turned to an old standby as their primary legislative effort for the new year: The Laken Riley Act. 

Progressive Democrats pounced, accusing Republicans of race-baiting.

“It is simply an attempt to score cheap political points off of a tragic death,” said Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., during the floor debate. “This is the Republican playbook over and over again. Scare people about immigrants.”

A USER’S MANUAL TO CERTIFYING THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., accused Republicans of trying to “score cheap political points” by naming their illegal immigrant crime bill after Laken Riley. (Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

“Their bill today is an empty and opportunistic measure,” said Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee. “Pick a crime. Paste into it a template immigration law covering convicted criminals and then require detention or deportation of certain persons merely accused of committing the crime or arrested for committing the crime.”

“It’s very clear that House Republicans are going to push an anti-immigrant agenda,” said House Democratic Caucus Chairman Pete Aguilar, D-Calif. “I personally voted against it because this would open a path for individuals with DACA, to be deported, even if they are just around someone who committed a crime.”

Republicans clapped back.

“To my Democratic colleagues, I ask you how many more laws with names attached to them do we need to pass before you take this crisis seriously?” asked Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif., during a debate on the House floor.

The majority of Democratic criticisms emanated from the left-wing of the party and progressives. 

But there’s an evolution underway in the Democratic Party. A practicality when it comes to border security, immigration and how the party mostly ignored the issue in the last election. And likely paid the price. 

LAKEN RILEY ACT PASSES HOUSE WITH 48 DEMS, ALL REPUBLICANS

Thirty-seven House Democrats voted in favor of the Laken Riley Act when the House approved the initial version of the bill last year. That figure ballooned to 48 Democratic yeas this week when the House approved the 2025 Laken Riley Act in its first legislative vote of 2025.

An examination of the vote matrix demonstrates how dozens of moderate Democrats or those representing swing districts voted yes. Six Democrats who voted nay last year flipped their vote to yea this time.

That includes Reps. Brendan Boyle, D-Penn., Val Hoyle, D-Ore., Lucy McBath, D-Ga., Joe Morelle, D-N.Y., Ritchie Torres, D-N.Y., and Terri Sewell, D-Ala.

“I’m concerned about what happened to Miss Riley.” said Morelle, the top Democrat on the House Administration Committee. “I want to make sure it doesn’t happen to other people.”

Other yeas came from longtime conservative Democrats like Rep. Henry Cueller, D-Tex. He represents a border district. When asked why he voted aye, Cueller responded, “That’s an easy one. We won’t welcome people that break the law.”

Other moderates representing swing districts who voted yes included Reps. Angie Craig, D-Minn., Don Davis, D-N.C., Jared Golden, D-Maine and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, D-Wash. 

HOUSE, SENATE REPUBLICANS REVIVE TRUMP-BACKED PUSH TO CRACK DOWN ON NONCITIZEN VOTING

Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Texas, speaks during a news conference on rising suicide rates at the U.S. Border Patrol on Wednesday, Dec. 7, 2022, on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. (AP Photo/Mariam Zuhaib)

So were Democrats getting religion after the election?

“There was criticism that Democrats didn’t take immigration seriously,” yours truly asked House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y. “Was there regret and that’s why some of these votes changed?”

Jeffries attributed it to new members joining the Democratic Caucus. 

“It’s my understanding that there were approximately eight to ten additional Democratic votes this year as compared to last year. There are 30 new members of the House Democratic Caucus,” said Jeffries.

But even though the bill passed the House, there’s always the Senate. And the Senate never considered the Laken Riley Act last year.

“The Senate,” lamented Collins. “[The bill] got bogged down and never showed up anywhere. It fell into the black hole of the Senate. Like much of our legislation that we sent over there.”

LEARNING CURVE: THE NEW PLAYERS IN CONGRESS

Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., said it is not “xenophobic” to want a secure border. (Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)

But Republicans now control the Senate. Not the Democrats. New Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., made sure his body also made the Laken Riley Act its primary focus for early 2025.

“Senate Democrats uniformly opposed (the Laken Riley Act) last year, despite the bill receiving bipartisan support in the House of Representatives,” said Thune. “We’ll see what they do when the new Senate majority brings it up for a vote.”

Sen. John Fetterman, D-Penn., who often bucks his party, quickly signed on to the Laken Riley Act.

“It’s not xenophobic to want a secure border,” said Fetterman. “It’s not xenophobic if you don’t want people with criminal records and that are actively breaking the law to remain here in the nation.”

Fetterman brushed off liberal concerns about violating the civil rights of undocumented persons who may be detained.

“If they’re here,” said Fetterman, “Technically, they’re already breaking the law.”

A slate of other Democrats quickly signed on to support the measure as well. 

Sen. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., a freshman who represents a battleground border state, was among them. He argues that Democrats fouled up the border security issue in the election. 

“There was inaction all together. It certainly cost the Democratic Party. And I’d say potentially, the White House,” said Gallego. “I think we have to take the lessons from that.”

The Senate voted 84-9 Thursday to break a filibuster to begin debate on the Laken Riley Act. It will be set for passage next week after clearing that procedural hurdle.

Republicans will offer other border security/immigration bills in the next few months. Watch to see if Democrats join them. The lesson culled from the Laken Riley Act is that Democrats who represent competitive turf believe the party messed up when it came to border security. They’re seeking to inoculate themselves on that issue. And even if it’s not all Democrats, this marks a different approach from the party on the border compared to last year.