Trump asks the Supreme Court to block sentencing in his hush money case in New York

President-elect Donald Trump has turned to the U.S. Supreme Court to block his sentencing Friday in Manhattan on his hush money conviction of 34 felony charges that he falsified business records to cover up a sexual liaison to illegally influence the 2016 presidential election.

Trump’s lawyers requested for an emergency stay from the nation's highest court early Wednesday to pause the hearing scheduled for 9:30 a.m. while he appeals New York State Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan’s decision that the incoming president does not have immunity from the justice system.

"This Court should enter an immediate stay of further proceedings in the New York trial court to prevent grave injustice and harm to the institution of the Presidency and the operations of the federal government," appellate lawyer John Sauer, Trump’s pick for solicitor general of his administration, wrote in court papers.

Merchan has indicated he will not impose prison time or fines for the conviction at sentencing.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who prosecuted Trump, has been given until Thursday at 10 a.m. to reply to Trump’s request.

On Tuesday, defense lawyer Todd Blanche, who Trump tapped to be deputy attorney general for his incoming administration, lost his bid to halt the Friday hearing, again arguing Merchan erred in his judgment that the president-elect is not immune from prosecution after a state appeals court on Tuesday denied his request to delay his sentencing.

"After consideration of the papers submitted and extensive oral argument, movant's application for an interim stay is denied," Associate Justice Ellen Gesmer wrote in court papers.

Later Wednesday, Blanche filed motion with the state Court of Appeals, the highest court in New York, also seeking to halt the sentencing. He cited the Supremacy Clause, which puts federal law above state law, and put forth similar arguments regarding presidential immunity.

"To go forward with a sentencing, with its inevitable threat of stigma, opprobrium, and potential criminal penalties, would pose risks to America’s vital interests that are intolerable and unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause and the doctrine of Presidential immunity," Blanche wrote in his brief.

A Manhattan jury voted to convict Trump in May for creating false business records to conceal a reimbursement to his former fixer Michael Cohen who had paid adult movie star Stormy Daniels not to talk about an alleged tryst she had with Trump.

Prosecutors have said the scheme was devised to hide the affair from the voting public.

The punishment phase of the trial had been scheduled for July, but the U.S. Supreme Court in its decision regarding federal charges filed against Trump ruled that sitting presidents cannot be tried for official acts in office. The high court also determined that some acts performed while in office that were not official could also be considered exempt from prosecution, but the panel did not elaborate.

This ruling opened the door for Blanche and his team to request the verdict be tossed because some of the testimony involved White House correspondence.

After months of delay and copious motions, Merchan rejected the request determining that testimony from White House staffers did not impact the jury verdict.

The judge said in court papers that he would likely impose an "unconditional discharge" as the punishment, meaning Trump would not get prison time or a fine, but would have a criminal record as a convicted felon.

Despite the probability of such a light punishment, the president-elect's lawyers argued that staying the sentencing would be crucial not just to Trump but to the entire country.

"Forcing President Trump to prepare for a criminal sentencing in a felony case while he is preparing to lead the free world as President of the United States in less than two weeks imposes an intolerable, unconstitutional burden on him that undermines these vital national interests," Sauer wrote in his brief. "During the transitional period, President Trump is communicating with world leaders, formulating his agenda for foreign and domestic relations, selecting key personnel for his incoming administration, and coordinating with the outgoing Administration across all agencies of the federal government."

 Former Manhattan federal prosecutor Rebecca Roiphe, now a professor at New York Law School, said there are a number of factors working against Trump.

"If I were sort of forced to bet, I would say that they wouldn't grant it," she said. "It's a very unusual remedy that's being sought here to stop a state court criminal proceeding in federal court. And also this notion that there's absolute presidential immunity from criminal prosecution is itself novel, and then the idea that would be extended to the president-elect is another step that's novel that doesn't seem entirely justified based on the reasoning of the federal memo."