The Supreme Court on Friday will hear oral arguments about a U.S. law requiring TikTok to either divest from its Chinese parent company, ByteDance, or be banned from operating in the U.S. It's a heavily followed case that pits national security concerns against free speech protections for millions of Americans.
The court agreed in December to hold an expedited hearing on the case, giving it just nine days to decide whether to uphold TikTok's request to halt or delay the ban passed by Congress before it takes effect Jan. 19.
It is unlikely the court will take that long, however, and justices are expected to issue a ruling or order in a matter of days.
The case comes as TikTok continues to be one of the most popular social media apps in the U.S. with an estimated 170 million users nationwide.
President-elect Trump has also signaled support for the app, putting the case further into the national spotlight in the final weeks before his inauguration.
Ahead of Friday's oral arguments, here's what to know about the arguments and how the Supreme Court might act.
TikTok arguments, alleged free speech violations
TikTok and its parent company, ByteDance, are urging the court to either block or delay the enforcement of a law Congress passed with bipartisan backing in April.
The Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act gave TikTok nine months to either divest from its Chinese parent company or be removed from U.S. app stores and hosting services. Its owners have said repeatedly they will not do so. It also grants the president a 90-day window to delay the ban if TikTok says a divestiture is in progress.
TikTok, ByteDance and several users of the app swiftly sued to block the ban in May, arguing the legislation would suppress free speech for the millions of Americans who use the platform.
Lawyers for TikTok argued that the law violates First Amendment protections, describing it as an "unprecedented attempt to single out applicants and bar them from operating one of the most significant speech platforms in this nation" and noting that lawmakers failed to consider less restrictive alternatives compared to an outright ban.
"History and precedent teach that, even when national security is at stake, speech bans must be Congress’s last resort," attorneys said in a reply brief filed last month to the high court.
National security concerns
Congress has cited concerns that China, a country it considers a foreign adversary of the U.S., could use TikTok to download vast troves of user data and push certain Chinese government-backed content onto users, prompting it to order the divestiture last spring.
The Biden administration also echoed these concerns. In a Supreme Court brief, U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar noted the law focuses solely on China’s control of the app, which the Biden administration argued could pose "grave national security threats" to Americans, rather than its content.
Beijing could "covertly manipulate the platform" to advance geopolitical interests in the U.S., Prelogar noted, or use the vast amount of user data it has amassed for either espionage or blackmail.
Lawyers for the administration will argue Friday that Congress did not impose any restrictions on speech— much less any restrictions based on viewpoint or on content — and failed to satisfy the test of free speech violations under the First Amendment.
The Biden administration also filed under seal classified evidence to the court that it argued "lends further support" to its conclusion that TikTok under ByteDance ownership should be banned.
That evidence has not been released to the public.
Political pressures
The Supreme Court's decision to fast-track the case comes as President-elect Trump has signaled apparent support for the app in recent months.
In December, Trump hosted TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew at his Mar-a-Lago resort, telling reporters during a press conference his incoming administration will "take a look at TikTok" and the divestiture case.
"I have a warm spot in my heart for TikTok," Trump told reporters.
Attorneys for the president-elect also filed a brief with the Supreme Court last month, asking justices to delay any decision in the case until after Trump's inauguration Jan. 20.
The brief did not signal how Trump might act.
Still, attorneys for TikTok have cited that relationship directly in their Supreme Court filings. Last month, they argued an interim injunction is appropriate "because it will give the incoming Administration time to determine its position, as the President-elect and his advisors have voiced support for saving TikTok.
"There is a strong public interest that this Court have the opportunity to exercise plenary review.
The case also comes amid a groundswell of support from some lawmakers in Congress.
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.; Sen. Edward Markey, D-Mass.; and Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., filed a brief Thursday urging the Supreme Court to reverse the ban, arguing the lawmakers do not have sufficient evidence needed to outweigh free speech protections granted under the First Amendment.
In the brief, lawmakers referenced the nation's longtime reliance on national security claims as a means of justifying censorship, citing examples from the Sedition Acts of the 18th and 20th centuries and Cold War-era free speech restrictions. Banning TikTok due to "speculative concerns" about foreign interference, they argued, is "unconstitutional and contradicts fundamental American values."
They argued the U.S. could adopt less drastic measures that would effectively address any data security concerns posed by the app while also not infringing on First Amendment rights.
Others remained deeply opposed.
Sen. Mitch McConnell blasted TikTok's arguments as "unmeritless and unsound" in a filing of his own, noting that Congress explicitly set the Jan. 19 date for the divestiture clause to take force since it "very clearly removes any possible political uncertainty in the execution of the law by cabining it to an administration that was deeply supportive of the bill’s goals."
FIRST ON FOX: Twenty Republican attorneys general are prepared to bolster President-elect Trump's crackdown on illegal immigration, according to a joint statement led by Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach shared with Fox News Digital.
"The Biden Administration took dozens of executive actions that weakened border controls and sanctioned illegal immigration from around the world," the letter states.
"Republican attorneys general fought back by taking the Biden Administration to court for ending successful Trump Administration immigration policies and replacing them with new policies that violated the law and encouraged illegal immigration. The Republican attorneys general prevailed in virtually every one of these laws."
The AGs say they're ready to restore Trump's "America First" policies from Trump's first administration, particularly his "Remain in Mexico policy" and mass deportations.
"As we point out in this letter, the Remain in Mexico policy is something that's found in federal statute, and it's been in federal statute since 1996. President Trump was the first president who actually implemented that policy set by Congress," Kobach told Fox News Digital in an interview.
"President Trump has all the statutory tools he needs," he added. "They are already in the federal code, and that's what we're saying too. As lawyers who have been trying to stop the Biden administration from violating the law, we are saying, ‘President Trump, you have our support, and you have a wide open runway ahead of you to renew the enforcement of our federal immigration laws.’"
The attorneys general are also anticipating Trump will "fully rescind the unlawful DACA programs," as he promised during his first term. The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, introduced in 2012 by the Obama administration, permits illegal immigrants brought to the country as children — often referred to as "Dreamers" — to temporarily remain in the country.
In addition to Kobach, attorneys general from Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, West Virginia and Tennessee signed the statement.
Republican attorneys general across the U.S. have been at the forefront of filing lawsuits against the Biden administration over the last four years. This month, Texas AG Ken Paxton filed his 103rd lawsuit against the outgoing administration over its energy efficiency standards for housing.
The Republicans have secured several legal wins. In 2021, a coalition led by then-Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry obtained a preliminary injunction against the administration's suspension of new oil and gas leases on federal land. In May 2024, Paxton achieved a significant win in a lawsuit alleging unlawful censorship by the administration, with a federal judge denying the government's motion to dismiss and ordering expedited discovery.
And a federal judge recently vacated the administration's Title IX rule, which had expanded protections against discrimination based on gender identity, after challenges from Republican-led states.
"I think what the 20 or so attorneys general signing this statement is about what the law is and what the law requires," Kobach said. "And … we are very grateful and expect that President Trump will return us to a country where the law is enforced and the strictures that Congress has put in place are observed."
President-elect Trump set off a fiery debate over whether Democrats should be to blame for California's wildfires after he accused Gov. Gavin Newsom of caring more about protecting an endangered fish species than protecting the state's residents from wildfires.
The president-elect has long railed against Democrats in California for limiting the availability of water for Californians that comes from the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers in the northern part of the state. He stumped on the issue during his 2016 campaign and, during his first term, Trump sought to divert more water away from a delta where the two rivers meet that is home to an endangered fish species known as smelt.
But Newsom and his administration challenged this in court, arguing opinions suggesting that the water diversion would not impact the fish were wrong. Newsom also previously opposed efforts to construct a pipeline meant to divert water south. He has overseen programs in his state that annually release hundreds of billions of gallons of stormwater buildup into the Sacramento-San Jaoquin River Delta to benefit the smelt habitat — rather than redirecting the water south for use by people in the central and southern parts of the state.
Trump set off a firestorm on Wednesday when he called out Newsom on his Truth Social platform for wanting "to protect an essentially worthless fish" over protecting the water needs of Californians. The comments are not new, however. In the run-up to the November election, Trump made the claim during an October interview with podcaster Joe Rogan.
"I was in [California] farm country with some of the congressmen," he told Rogan. "We're driving up a highway and I say, ‘How come all this land is so barren?’ It's farmland and it looked terrible. It was just brown and bad. I said, 'But there's always that little corner that's so green and beautiful.' They said, ‘We have no water.’ I said, ‘Do you have a drought?’ 'No, we don't have a drought.' I said, 'Why don't you have no water?' Because the water isn't allowed to flow down. And in order to protect a tiny little fish, the water up north gets routed into the Pacific Ocean. Millions and millions of gallons of water gets poured."
California's devastating wildfires have killed at least five people and driven hundreds of thousands of people from their homes. The Palisades Fire alone has burned through more than 17,000 acres of land, which is larger than the island of Manhattan. The damage so far has been estimated to be in the tens of billions of dollars.
The president-elect's claims have been paired with reports that firefighters are running out of water as they battle the blaze, prompting the state to mobilize resources to replenish empty supplies.
"There's no water in the Palisades. There's no water coming out of the fire hydrants. This is an absolute mismanagement by the city. Not the firefighters' fault, but the city's," Rick Caruso, a billionaire developer who unsuccessfully ran against Karen Bass for mayor in 2022, told Fox News.
The governor's press office said in response to Trump's accusations that he was completely wrong, arguing the president-elect "is conflating two entirely unrelated things: the conveyance of water to Southern California and supply from local storage."
"Broadly speaking, there is no water shortage in Southern California right now, despite Trump's claims that he would open some imaginary spigot," Newsom's office added. "[The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power] said that because of the high water demand, pump stations at lower elevations did not have enough pressure refill tanks at higher elevations, and the ongoing fire hampered the ability of crews to access the pumps. To supplement, they used water tenders to supply water — a common tactic in wildland firefighting."
Firefighters in California made progress towards slowing the spread of the fire on Thursday, according to The Associated Press. Crews reportedly were able to eliminate a fire that broke out in the Hollywood Hills on Wednesday evening and by Thursday had lifted the area's evacuation order. Still, the fires continue to burn and most are only partially contained as of Thursday afternoon, according to reports.
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis called out a reporter on Thursday for the lack of blame being placed on California leaders for the devastating wildfires, pointing out that it's in stark contrast to how Republican leaders are often treated in the wake of disasters.
DeSantis, and all other Republican governors, had just wrapped up a dinner with President-elect Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago on Thursday evening when the heated exchange with a reporter took place.
The reporter appeared to be asking another governor if it was appropriate for Trump to criticize Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom as deadly wildfires rage throughout the state.
The question prompted DeSantis to step forward and ask, "Is it appropriate for people in your industry to try to create division and to try to create narratives any time these things happen?"
"Now, you're not as interested in doing that because Newsom is a D. If Newsom was a Republican, you guys would go try ... you would have him nailed to the wall for what they're doing over there," he continued.
The Florida governor, who has managed multiple disasters during his tenure, said he has often been criticized for things that were out of his control and has been blamed for incidents before the facts came out, referencing the 2021 Surfside condominium collapse.
"I think your track record of politicizing these things is very, very bad," DeSantis said.
He said Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass would be treated much differently for her trip to Ghana while fires were high risk if she were a Republican.
"You should have been there preparing and doing that, and yet I don't see a lot of heat being directed [toward her]," DeSantis said. "I'd like to see some balance on how this is done. You can criticize the president-elect, but you also have to hold these other people accountable, and I have not seen that."
Bass returned to Los Angeles on Wednesday, and didn't have much to say to the residents of her city outside of news conferences. While waiting to deplane, she gave the cold shoulder to Sky News reporter David Blevins, who was asking her if she had anything to say about the devastating fires.
"No apology to them? Do you think you should have been visiting Ghana while this was unfolding back home?" Blevins asked as Bass continued to look at the ground.
"Madam mayor, let me ask you just again, have you anything to say to the citizens today as you return?" he said.
As multiple wildfires rage on in Los Angeles County, California residents have been criticizing both Newsom and Bass for past decisions related to fire-prevention efforts, including Bass' decision to cut the LAFD budget by $17 million.
The wildfires have claimed at least 10 lives since they broke out on Tuesday, scorching more than 35,800 acres total and destroying thousands of homes and businesses.
Firefighters were still struggling to contain the Palisades Fire and the Eaton Fire – the two largest of the group – as they sit at 6% contained and 0% contained, respectively, on Thursday evening, according to data by CAL FIRE.
A federal appeals court rejected a bid to block the release of a portion of special counsel Jack Smith's final report detailing his investigation and prosecution of President-elect Trump's alleged 2020 election interference and alleged improper retention of classified records.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit denied the request from Walt Nauta, an aide to Trump, and Carlos de Oliveira, the former property manager at Mar-a-Lago, who were charged for their role in allegedly obstructing a separate federal investigation into Trump's handling of sensitive government records.
The 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals left a three-day hold on DOJ’s release of the report.
Smith was tapped by Garland in 2022 to investigate both the alleged effort by Trump and his allies to overturn the results of the 2020 election, as well as Trump's keeping of allegedly classified documents at his Florida residence.
Trump pleaded not guilty to all charges. Nauta and de Oliveira also pleaded not guilty to federal charges alleging they conspired to obstruct the FBI investigation into classified documents found at Mar-a-Lago.
President-elect Trump announced a series of Cabinet picks as his Jan. 20 inauguration nears and Senate confirmation begins.
Trump nominated former Fox News contributor Leo Terrell, a civil rights attorney, as senior counsel to the assistant attorney general for civil rights at the Department of Justice.
"He will work alongside Harmeet K. Dhillon, a fellow Californian, and our incredible Nominee for United States Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights in the Justice Department," Trump wrote. "Leo is a highly respected civil rights attorney and political analyst. He received his law degree from the University of California, Los Angeles, and has defended many high-profile cases throughout his incredibly successful career.
"Leo will be a fantastic advocate for the American People, and ensure we will, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!"
In an announcement Thursday evening, Trump revealed Christine Toretti as his pick for ambassador to Sweden. He said Toretti is an "incredible businesswoman, philanthropist, public servant, and RNC Committeewoman."
"She is Chairman of S&T Bancorp, and a former director of the Pittsburgh Federal Reserve Bank," Trump wrote. "Christine has been a tireless supporter of important causes as a Board Member of the International Medical Corps, former Chair of the Andy Warhol Museum, Director of the NCAA Foundation, founding Director of the Gettysburg Foundation, Trustee of the Sarah Scaife Foundation, and Chair of the Anne B. Anstine Excellence in Public Service Series in Pennsylvania, and the Dodie Londen Excellence in Public Service Series in Arizona.
"Christine is one of fewer than sixty women who have received the Athena International Global Award."
Trump also announced retired Army Capt. Sam Brown would serve as the next Under Secretary for Memorial Affairs at the Department of Veterans Affairs.
"Sam is an American HERO, a Purple Heart recipient, and successful businessman from Nevada, who has devoted his life to serving America," Trump said in the announcement. "He fearlessly proved his love for our Country in the Army, while leading Troops in battle in Afghanistan and, after being honorably retired as a Captain, helping our Veterans get access to emergency medications.
"Sam will now continue his service to our Great Nation at the VA, where he will work tirelessly to ensure we put America’s Veterans FIRST, and remember ALL who served."
The nominations come as Trump continues to round out picks for his Cabinet as Jan. 20 nears.
The Republican-controlled U.S. Senate will soon begin holding hearings for Trump's Cabinet nominees.
Republicans will control the Senate with 53 seats to the Democrats' 47 once Senator-elect Jim Justice of West Virginia is sworn in later in January and Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine appoints a senator to fill Vice President-elect Vance’s seat.
A federal appeals court has delayed Friday's scheduled military court hearing where suspected 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and two co-conspirators were expected to plead guilty as part of a deal negotiated with prosecutors.
The pause, though welcomed by the many who opposed the plea deals, prolongs a decades-long crusade for justice by the victims' families.
The plea deals, which would have three 9/11 terrorists avoid the death penalty and face life in prison, have drawn sharp outcry from the public and even prompted a dispute within the Biden administration to undo them.
On New Year’s Eve, a military appeals court shot down Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin's effort to block the deal between military prosecutors and defense lawyers, saying Austin did not have the power to cancel plea agreements.
Specifically, the court opinion said the plea deals reached by military prosecutors and defense attorneys were valid and enforceable and that Austin exceeded his authority when he later tried to nullify them.
The defense now has until Jan. 17 to offer a full response to the Department of Justice's request to have the plea deals thrown out. Government prosecutors then have until Jan. 22 for a rebuttal, with possible oral arguments on the issue to follow.
The plea deals, offered to Mohammed and two co-conspirators, were meant as a way to wrap up the quest for justice to those who have been waiting more than two decades to see the terrorists that killed their loved ones convicted. They would allow prosecutors to avoid going to trial.
But why did the government settle for a plea deal after 23 years of building a case in the first place?
"I haven't spoken to a single person who thinks these plea deals were a good idea. Most people are horrified," said Brett Eagleson, president of 9/11 Justice.
"It's our thought that this was rescinded in name only and like it was done right before the election. So, Austin was trying to save any attempts at sort of a political loss on this," said Eagleson.
In its appeal this week, the government says, "Respondents are charged with perpetrating the most egregious criminal act on American soil in modern history — the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
"The military commission judge intends to enforce pretrial plea agreements that will deprive the government and the American people of a public trial as to the respondents’ guilt and the possibility of capital punishment, despite the fact that the Secretary of Defense has lawfully withdrawn those agreements," the appeal said. "The harm to the government and the public will be irreparable once the judge accepts the pleas, which he is scheduled to do in hearings beginning on January 10, 2025."
The appeal also noted that once the military commission accepts the guilty pleas, there is likely no way to return to the status quo.
Defense lawyers for the suspected 9/11 perpetrators argued Austin’s attempts to throw out the plea deals that his own military negotiated and approved were the latest developments in the "fitful" and "negligent" mishandling of the case that has dragged on for more than two decades.
If the plea deal is upheld, the architects of the attacks that killed 2,976, plus thousands more who died after inhaling toxic dust in rescue missions, will not be put to death for their crimes.
"You would think that the government has an opportunity to make right, and you would think that they would be salivating at the opportunity to bring us justice," Eagleson said. "Rather than doing that, they shroud everything in secrecy. They're rushing to get these plea deals done, and they're marching forward despite the objections of us.
"We want transparency. We want the discovery that's been produced. In this case, we want to know who are these guys they're talking to? On what grounds does our government think that these guys are guilty? Why can't they share that with us? It's been 23 years. You can't tell me that you need to protect national security sources and methods because, quite frankly, if we're using the same sources and methods that we were 23 years ago, we have bigger fish to fry."
The government opted to try five men in one case instead of each individually. Mohammed is accused of masterminding the plot and proposing it to Usama bin Laden. Two others allegedly helped the hijackers with finances.
In 2023, a medical panel concluded that Ramzi bin al-Shibh was not competent to stand trial and removed him from the case. Mohammed, Mustafa al-Hawsawi and Walid bin Attash, are all part of the plea agreement that will allow them to avoid the death penalty. One other will go to trial.
"The military commission has really been a failure," said John Ryan, a retired agent on the FBI's joint terrorism task force in New York.
Hundreds of people have been convicted of terrorism charges in the U.S. Ramzi Yousef, the perpetrator of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, was convicted in 1997.
But the military commission’s 9/11 case has faced a revolving door of judges, who then each take time to get up to speed with the 400,000 pages and exhibits in the case. Col. Matthew N. McCall of the Air Force, the fourth judge to preside over hearings in the case, intends to retire in the first quarter of 2025 before any trial begins.
McCall was assigned to the case in August 2021, and he held only two rounds of hearings before suspending the proceedings in March 2022 for plea negotiations. Another judge would have to get up to speed, and it could be another five to 10 years before a conviction, according to Ryan, who observed many of the hearings at Guantánamo.
"You have parents and grandparents [of victims] that now are in their 80s, you know, and want to see justice in their lifetime," he said.
"So, they would prefer to see the death penalty, but they’re sort of accepting the plea agreement here."
In the 23 years it’s taken to go to trial, critical witnesses have died, while others have waning memories of that fateful day.
For many years, the trial was delayed as the prosecution and the defense argued over whether some of the government’s best evidence, obtained under torture by the CIA, was permissible in court. The defense argued their clients had been conditioned to say anything that would please interrogators under this practice.
Former Attorney General Eric Holder has blamed "political hacks" for preventing a U.S.-based trial and thereby leading to the plea deal.
Years of proceedings in the untested military commissions system have led to countless delays.
Holder in 2009 had wanted to try the men in the Manhattan court system and promised to seek the death penalty, but he faced swift opposition in Congress from lawmakers who opposed bringing the suspected terrorists onto U.S. soil.
In 2013, Holder claimed Mohammed and his co-conspirators would be sitting on "death row as we speak" if the case had gone through the federal court system as he proposed.
Ten years later, Attorney General William Barr also tried to bring the Guantánamo detainees to the U.S. for a trial in federal court in 2019. He wrote in his memoir that the military commission process had become a "hopeless mess."
"The military can’t seem to get out of its own way and complete the trial," Barr wrote. He, too, ran into opposition from Republicans in Congress and then-President Trump.
President-elect Donald Trump said he respects the Supreme Court’s decision to deny his request to stop his sentencing in New York v. Trump from moving forward, but said Thursday night he will appeal, while stressing that "lawfare" has been an "attack on the Republican Party."
Trump’s comments came just moments after the Supreme Court denied Trump’s emergency petition to block his sentencing from taking place on Friday, Jan. 10. The sentencing was scheduled by New York Judge Juan Merchan.
Merchan, last week, said he would not sentence the president-elect to prison, but rather issue a sentence of an "unconditional discharge," which means there would be no punishment imposed.
"I’m the first president and probably one of the first candidates in history that’s under attack with a gag order where I’m not allowed to speak about something," Trump said during a meeting at Mar-a-Lago Thursday night with Republican governors. "This is a long way from finished and I respect the court’s opinion."
Trump said he thought the court’s ruling was a "very good opinion for us," noting that the justices "invited the appeal."
"We’ll see how it all works out," he said. "I think it’s going to work out well."
But Trump reflected on the "lawfare" that he has been victim of, saying that it "was an attack on the Republican Party."
"This was an attack on the Republican candidate who just won an election by record numbers—the highest number of Republican votes by far ever gotten, and we won all the swing states, we won the popular vote by millions of people," he said. "They tried to stop that from happening—they tried to stop this election from happening or to bloody somebody up so badly they couldn’t win."
Trump said that "the people got it and we won by the largest number."
Trump filed an emergency petition to the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday in an effort to prevent his Jan. 10 sentencing, scheduled by Judge Juan Merchan, from taking place.
"The application for stay presented to Justice Sotomayor and by her referred to the Court is denied for, inter alia, the following reasons. First, the alleged evidentiary violations at President-Elect Trump’s state-court trial can be addressed in the ordinary course on appeal," the order states.
"Second, the burden that sentencing will impose on the President-Elect’s responsibilities is relatively insubstantial in light of the trial court’s stated intent to impose a sentence of unconditional discharge' after a brief virtual hearing," the court ruled.
The order also noted that "Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, Justice Gorsuch, and Justice Kavanaugh would grant the application."
Trump needed five votes in order to have his request granted. The note on the order suggests Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett voted with Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Katanji Brown Jackson.
Trump's sentencing is now expected to move forward, with the president-elect expected to appear virtually for the proceeding, scheduled for 9:30 am Friday.
Merchan set Trump's sentencing in New York v. Trump for Jan. 10 after a jury found the now-president-elect guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree, stemming from Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's investigation. Trump pleaded not guilty to all charges and has appealed the ruling but was rejected last week by Merchan.
Trump will be sworn in as the 47th President of the United States on Jan. 20.
Trump has maintained his innocence in the case and repeatedly railed against it as an example of "lawfare" promoted by Democrats in an effort to hurt his election efforts ahead of November.
Latest Political News and Updates from BBC
Latest Political News on Fox News
