By a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court handed a largely symbolic, but still politically significant, loss to President-elect Donald Trump on Thursday evening. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, both Republicans, voted with all three of the Courts Democrats.The case, known as Trump v. New York, involves Trumps felony convictions for falsifying business records related to hush money payments Trump made to an adult actress. Trump was convicted on 34 felony charges last May, but he is not scheduled to be sentenced until Friday. Trump asked the Supreme Court to halt that sentencing hearing, at least until higher courts hear his appeals claiming that his conviction violates a legal doctrine, newly established by the Supreme Courts recent immunity ruling in favor of Trump, which gives former presidents broad-but-not-limitless immunity from prosecution.The actual stakes in this Supreme Court dispute were fairly low. Though Trump is about to be sentenced, the judge presiding over his criminal trial signaled that he will sentence Trump to unconditional discharge, meaning that Trump would not be punished with imprisonment, a fine, or probation even though he was found guilty. Still, Trump sought to halt the proceeding where he would have received this sentence.In claiming such immunity, Trump relied heavily on the Courts July decision in Trump v. United States (2024). In that case, the six Republican justices held that Trump enjoys broad immunity from being prosecuted for any crimes he committed (or commits in the future) using the powers of the presidency.The newer case, by contrast, involves criminal activity that Trump engaged in before he was elected president. Nevertheless, Trump claimed that the July decision required the courts to halt the sentencing hearing -- among other things, Trumps lawyers argued that his New York convictions are invalid because the trial included testimony from some of Trumps former presidential aides, and arguably involved official business.In ruling against Trump, the five justices in the majority emphasized that they were doing so in large part because the stakes in the New York case are so low. In a single-paragraph order, the Court revealed that it decided to say out of the case for now because the alleged evidentiary violations at President-Elect Trumps state-court trial can be addressed in the ordinary course on appeal, and because Trump faces a minimal burden because the trial judge intends to give him such a light sentence.Nothing in the Courts order prevents it from getting involved in this case after it is heard by other appeals courts. The Supreme Court is merely staying its hand for the time being.It is notable, however, that even in this low-stakes dispute, four justices dissented. That suggests that there is strong support within the Court for reading the July immunity decision very broadly. And, of course, if any one of the five justices in the majority should flip their vote, Trump will prevail the next time this dispute arrives on the Supreme Courts doorstep.Youve read 1 article in the last monthHere at Vox, we're unwavering in our commitment to covering the issues that matter most to you threats to democracy, immigration, reproductive rights, the environment, and the rising polarization across this country.Our mission is to provide clear, accessible journalism that empowers you to stay informed and engaged in shaping our world. By becoming a Vox Member, you directly strengthen our ability to deliver in-depth, independent reporting that drives meaningful change.We rely on readers like you join us.Swati SharmaVox Editor-in-ChiefSee More: