Trump's bid to halt sentencing in hush-money case fails at Supreme Court

Trump had requested the court to determine if he was entitled to an automatic stay of sentencing, but the justices rejected his appeal by a narrow 5-4 margin.

Is allowance instantly strangers applauded

The United States Supreme Court has denied President-elect Donald Trump’s last-ditch attempt to postpone his sentencing in the criminal hush-money case scheduled for Friday.

Trump had requested the court to determine if he was entitled to an automatic stay of sentencing, but the justices rejected his appeal by a narrow 5-4 margin.

The case centers on Trump’s conviction for falsifying records to conceal reimbursements for a $130,000 payment made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels during the 2016 presidential campaign, mischaracterized as legal expenses.

Justice Juan Merchan, presiding over the case, has indicated that incarceration is not being considered for Trump.

Speaking to reporters on Thursday evening, Trump criticized the proceedings, calling the case a "disgrace" but described the Supreme Court's decision as "actually fair."

"It's a judge who shouldn't even be on this case," he added, apparently referencing Justice Merchan. He went on to accuse his opponents of using the legal system for political gains.

In a significant move, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, both conservatives, joined the court’s three liberal justices in denying Trump’s plea for a delay. Meanwhile, conservative justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh dissented, supporting Trump’s request to postpone sentencing.

Justice Alito faced criticism for having a conversation with Trump the day before the ruling, during which he reportedly recommended a former law clerk for a position in Trump’s incoming administration.

Trump’s request for a delay had previously been denied by three New York courts before reaching the Supreme Court. The justices ultimately ruled that Trump’s concerns could be addressed through the appeals process and found that attending the sentencing would not impose a significant burden.

Trump's legal team also sought to argue that a president-elect should be immune from criminal prosecution. However, Manhattan prosecutors urged the court to reject the appeal, citing a strong public interest in proceeding with the sentencing and emphasizing the lack of legal grounds for such immunity.

Initially scheduled for July 2024, Trump’s sentencing had been delayed multiple times after his legal team successfully persuaded Justice Merchan to grant extensions. However, the judge recently announced the sentencing would proceed on January 10, just days before Trump’s inauguration. This decision triggered a flurry of legal filings and appeals from Trump’s attorneys, all of which were ultimately denied.

In their Supreme Court filing, Trump’s lawyers argued that a stay was necessary to prevent "grave injustice and harm" to the presidency and federal government operations. They sought to extend protections afforded by a previous Supreme Court ruling that granted presidents immunity from prosecution for official acts performed in office.

Prosecutors countered that such claims of immunity for a president-elect were unprecedented and unsupported by legal precedent. They emphasized that the U.S. has "only one President at a time."