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

The US Supreme Court rejected Trump’s last-minute request to stay his sentencing on Friday in his criminal slush case.

The president-elect had urged the Supreme Court to consider whether he had the right to automatically suspend his sentence, but the justices rejected the request by a vote of 5 to 4.

Trump was convicted of falsifying records to conceal a $130,000 payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels in legal expenses in 2016.

Judge Juan Merchan, who is overseeing the case, indicated in a recent ruling that he would not consider sentencing Trump to prison.

The president-elect reacted angrily to the ruling on Thursday evening, telling reporters that it was a “disgrace”, but also “a actually fair decision.”

“He is a judge who should not have taken this case,” he said, apparently referring to Judge Merchan, adding: “They can have a good time with their political opponent.”

Two conservative justices on the Supreme Court – John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett – joined the three liberals in the majority to reject Trump’s request for a delay.

The remaining four justices, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh, would have granted Trump’s request.

Alito was criticized for speaking to Trump just a day before the decision in a phone call when the chief justice recommended one of his former law clerks to serve in the next president’s administration.

Three lower courts in New York rejected Trump’s delay attempt before the Supreme Court made its final decision on Thursday evening to allow the ruling to continue as scheduled.

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

They also wrote that the burden of attending the sentencing was “immaterial.”

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

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

Following a guilty jury verdict in May 2024, Trump was initially scheduled to be sentenced in July, but his lawyers successfully convinced Judge Merchan to postpone sentencing on three separate occasions.

Last week, Judge Merchan announced that the ruling would go forward on January 10, just days before Trump is sworn in again as president.

The days that followed witnessed a barrage of appeals and court filings from Trump’s lawyers, in an attempt to avoid the ruling.

But in quick succession, New York’s appeals courts rejected the offers.

Finally, on Wednesday, Trump’s lawyers filed a petition with the Supreme Court to intervene.

They wrote that the court should halt the proceedings “to prevent gross injustice and harm to the institution of the presidency and the operations of the federal government.”

The 6-3 conservative majority gave Trump a major victory last year, when it ruled that US presidents enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution for “official acts” they perform while in office.

This decision led to the cancellation of a federal trial against Trump on charges of illegal interference in the results of the 2020 elections, which he denied and pleaded not guilty.

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

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

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

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

In another legal setback for Trump on Thursday, a federal appeals court in Georgia rejected an attempt to block the release of part of special counsel Jack Smith’s report on Trump’s alleged plot to prevent the transfer of power to Joe Biden after the 2020 election.

Lawyers for Walt Nauta, the former aide, and former Mar-a-Lago real estate manager Carlos de Oliveira said their release would unfairly prejudice potential criminal cases against them in the future.