U.S. Supreme Court rejects President-elect Donald Trump's request to delay historic sentencing on hush money case conviction

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday evening rejected Donald Trump’s request to stay his sentencing, clearing the way for a historic hearing that would leave the incoming president a felon for his conviction on 34 counts of falsifying business records to try to hide a sexual encounter with an adult film star ahead of the 2016 election.

Five justices voted against Trump's request, with justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh voting for delaying the punishment. Thomas and Alito were nominated by former President George H.W. Bush. Gorsuch and Kavanaugh were Trump appointees.

The prevailing judges ruled the stay was unnecessary because the president-elect can argue his case on appeal and the burden of the sentencing on Trump "is substantially light" given the presiding judge's promise he would not face any prison time.

New York State Supreme Court Justice Juan M. Merchan scheduled the sentencing for Trump for Friday at 9:30 a.m. The judge gave him the option of appearing in person or via video.

Merchan has signaled he would not impose a prison term on the president-elect, leaving only a public record of Trump’s felony conviction.

Trump said he "respects" the Supreme Court’s refusal to delay the sentencing and plans to appeal, The Associated Press reported.

Trump, who will be sworn into office in 10 days, lost several last-minute bids to put off the punishment phase of his trial, petitioning the state appellate court, the New York Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that as an incoming president, he should be immune from prosecution. He was denied in each venue.

The 9:30 a.m. hearing will cap a two-year criminal trial, beginning with his indictment in March 2023 on 34 counts of falsifying business records to hide reimbursements to Trump’s former fixer Michael Cohen, who had paid adult film star Stormy Daniels $130,000 in hush money to stay silent about an alleged affair with the president-elect.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg brought the charges under rarely used state statutes that made it a felony to doctor business records in an attempt to sway the outcome of an election.

Trump, 78, criticized the prosecution as politically driven and claimed Bragg, who is Black and a Democrat, targeted him because he is white and Republican.

Prosecutors called 20 witnesses, including Daniels, former White House communications director Hope Hicks, National Enquirer publisher David Pecker and disbarred lawyer Cohen.

Just hours before the sentencing, two briefs from outside parties were filed with the Supreme Court on Thursday ahead of their decision on the stay, one in favor of halting the sentencing and the other against. Both said the country and the Constitution could be undermined if the court ruled counter to their arguments.

Former U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese, who served under President Ronald Reagan, and constitutional scholar Steven Calabresi argued in their submission that though Trump has not yet been sworn in, he is already undertaking the role and duties of the presidency.

"President Trump is also busy drafting orders that he will start issuing in 11 days when he is sworn in," the Meese brief said. "It is intolerable that one county prosecutor in one State could besmirch a President’s reputation and reduce his effectiveness in carrying out his extensive duties at this time."

On the other side, former Massachusetts Gov. William Weld and former New Jersey Gov. Christie Todd Whitman, both Republicans, who are part of a group called State Democracy Defenders Action, argued that immunity does not extend to a president-elect and the sentencing should go forward.

"Treating Applicant differently solely because he is about to be President violates the fundamental principle that no one is above the law," they wrote in their brief.

Early Thursday, the New York Court of Appeals denied a state-level effort by Trump’s lawyers to halt the sentencing and overturn the conviction. 

Appeals lawyer John Sauer, who is Trump’s pick for solicitor general, also argued that punishing the incoming president would be disruptive to the transition process.

"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."

Steven Wu, chief of the Manhattan District Attorney’s Appeals Division, urged the Supreme Court to reject Trump’s claims that the same immunity doctrine protects an incoming president from prosecution as a sitting president.

Further, he said the court had made accommodations to the president-elect to ease the burden of the punishment phase of the trial.

"There is a compelling public interest in proceeding to sentencing; the trial court has taken extraordinary steps to minimize any burdens on defendant, including by announcing his intent to sentence defendant to an unconditional discharge; and defendant has provided no record support for his claim that his duties as President-elect foreclose him from virtually attending a sentencing that will likely take no more than an hour," he wrote to the high court.

In his brief to the New York State Court of Appeals, Wu also dismissed claims that the court and prosecutors were "rushing" the sentencing, originally scheduled for July 2024.

 "Every adjournment of the sentencing date since then has been to accommodate defendant’s requests for more time — including more time for posttrial briefing and more time to get past the date of the presidential election," Wu wrote. "Thus, far from rushing to sentencing, Supreme Court has instead bent over backward to give defendant ample time after the trial and before sentencing to fully litigate his various posttrial motions." 

A Manhattan jury convicted Trump in May for creating false business records to conceal a reimbursement to Cohen. Bragg’s office said Trump had conspired with Cohen and Pecker to hide a sexual liaison with Daniels from the voting public in 2016.

Trump faced up to 4 years behind bars at the initial sentencing schedule for July, however days before the court date the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 vote along party lines that sitting presidents are immune from criminal prosecution. The high court also found some unofficial acts performed while the president was in office could also be exempt from criminal punishment.

 Merchan delayed July's sentencing so that defense attorneys Todd Blanche and Emil Bove could figure out how the ruling effected their client’s conviction. The lawyers argued some of the testimony touched on Trump’s first term in the Oval Office and therefore should have been excluded under the immunity decision.

Months went by without the judge issuing a decision and in the lead up to the heated 2024 presidential election, the lawyers accused the judge of election interference and having a conflict of interest because his daughter worked on Vice President Kamala Harris’ campaign.

Merchan agreed to postpone the sentencing until after the election, but refused to recuse himself from the proceedings, denying he had a conflict in the case.