The Supreme Court rejects Trump’s request to stay the sentence in the hush money case

The US Supreme Court has rejected Trump’s last-minute request to stay his Friday sentencing in his impeachment trial.

The president-elect had asked the high court to consider whether he had the right to overturn his sentence, but the justices rejected that request 5-4.

Trump was found guilty of falsifying records to hide reimbursements for a $130,000 payment to former movie star Stormy Daniels in legal fees in 2016.

Justice Juan Merchan, who is presiding over the case, indicated in a recent decision that he would not consider Trump’s sentence.

Three lower New York courts rejected Trump’s bid for a delay before the Supreme Court made a final decision Thursday evening to allow the sentencing to go ahead as planned.

The justices denied Trump’s request because they believed his concerns could be resolved during an appeal.

They also wrote that the burden of attending the sentencing is “not great”.

Trump’s lawyers also asked the Supreme Court to consider whether president-elects are immune from criminal prosecution.

Manhattan prosecutors urged the Supreme Court to reject Trump’s request, saying there was a “compelling public interest” in imposing the sentence and that there was “no basis for such intervention”.

After the judge’s decision in May 2024, Trump was to be sentenced in July, but his lawyers succeeded in persuading Justice Merchan to delay the sentence three separate times.

Last week, Justice Merchan announced that the sentence will go forward on January 10, just days before Trump is sworn in as president.

Since then there have been a number of appeals and court filings from Trump’s lawyers, trying to block the sentence.

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

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

The court should stop the proceedings “to prevent serious injustice and damage to the institution of the Presidency and the functioning of the federal government”, they wrote.

The 6-3 bench majority handed Trump a major victory last year, when they ruled that US presidents are immune from criminal prosecution for “official acts” done in office.

That decision included the prosecution of Trump on charges of illegal interference in the outcome of the 2020 election, which he denies and has pleaded not guilty.

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

Manhattan prosecutors argued in their Supreme Court brief that Trump’s claim of “unusual immunity is not supported by any decision of any court”.

“It is unfortunate that there is only one President at a time,” prosecutors wrote.

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