Supreme Court rejects Trump’s bid to halt sentencing in hush money case

The US Supreme Court has rejected Trump’s last-minute attempt to halt his Friday sentencing in his hush money criminal case.

The president-elect had asked the top court to consider whether he was eligible for an automatic stay of his sentence, but the justices rejected the application by a 5-4 vote.

Trump was found guilty of falsifying records to hide repayments for a $130,000 payout to adult film star Stormy Daniels in legal fees in 2016.

Judge Juan Merchan, who is overseeing the case, indicated in a recent ruling that he will not consider a prison term for Trump.

Two of the Supreme Court’s conservative justices — John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett — joined the three liberals in the majority.

Three lower courts in New York had rejected Trump’s delay attempts before the Supreme Court made a final decision Thursday night to allow the sentencing to proceed as scheduled.

The justices rejected Trump’s petition because they believed his concerns could be addressed on appeal.

They also wrote that the burden of attending a sentencing hearing was “negligible.”

Trump’s lawyers had also asked the Supreme Court to consider whether presidents-elect had immunity from criminal prosecution.

Manhattan prosecutors had urged the Supreme Court to reject Trump’s petition, arguing that there was a “compelling public interest” in holding the sentencing and that there was “no basis for such interference.”

Following the jury’s guilty verdict in May 2024, Trump was initially scheduled to be sentenced in July, but his lawyers successfully persuaded Justice Merchan to delay sentencing on three separate occasions.

Last week, Justice Merchan declared that sentencing would move forward to January 10, just days before Trump is sworn in again as president.

The days since have seen a barrage of appeals and court filings from Trump’s lawyers trying to stave off the sentencing.

But in quick succession, New York appeals courts rejected the bids.

Finally, on Wednesday, Trump’s lawyers asked the Supreme Court to intervene.

The court should stay the case “to prevent grave injustice and damage to the institution of the presidency and the operations of the federal government,” they wrote.

The bench’s 6-3 conservative majority had handed Trump a major victory last year when they ruled that US presidents had immunity from prosecution for “official acts” carried out in office.

That decision scuttled a federal prosecution of Trump on charges that he illegally interfered in the 2020 election results, which he denied and pleaded not guilty.

But since his re-election, Trump’s lawyers have tried to convince a series of judges that those presidential immunity protections should also apply to a president-elect in this criminal case in Manhattan.

Manhattan prosecutors argued in their own case to the Supreme Court that Trump’s “extraordinary immunity claim is not supported by any decision of any court”.

“It is axiomatic that there is only one president at a time,” prosecutors wrote.

Separately, a group of former officials and legal scholars filed an amicus brief — effectively a letter of support — to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to reject Trump’s “attempts to avoid accountability.”