Supreme Court rejects Trump’s bid to delay sentencing in his New York hush money case

A divided Supreme Court on Thursday rejected President-elect Donald Trump’s bid to delay his sentencing in his hush money case in New York.

The court’s order clears the way for Judge Juan M. Merchan to impose a sentence Friday on Trump, who was convicted in what prosecutors called an attempt to cover up a $130,000 hush money payment to porn actor Stormy Daniels. Trump has denied any liaison with Daniels or any wrongdoing.

Merchan has said he will not give Trump jail time, fines or probation.

But Trump’s attorneys have argued that evidence used in the Manhattan trial violated last summer’s Supreme Court ruling giving Trump broad immunity from prosecution over acts he took as president.

At the least, they have said, the sentencing should be delayed while their appeals play out to avoid distracting Trump during the presidential transition.

Prosecutors pushed back, saying there’s no reason for the court to take the “extraordinary step” of intervening in a state case now. Trump’s attorneys haven’t shown that an hourlong virtual hearing would be a serious disruption, and a pause would likely mean pushing the case past the Jan. 20 inauguration, creating a yearslong delay in sentencing if it happens at all.

Trump’s attorneys went to the justices after New York courts refused to postpone sentencing, including the state’s highest court on Thursday.

Judges in New York have found that the convictions on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related to personal matters rather than Trump’s official acts as president. Daniels says she had a sexual encounter with Trump in 2006. He denies it.

Trump’s attorneys called the case politically motivated, and they said sentencing him now would be a “grave injustice” that threatens to disrupt the presidential transition as the Republican prepares to return to the White House.

Trump is represented by D. John Sauer, his pick to be the solicitor general, who represents the government before the high court.

Sauer also argued for Trump in the separate criminal case charging him with trying to overturn the results of the 2020 election that resulted in the Supreme Court’s immunity opinion.

Defense attorneys cited that opinion in arguing some of the evidence used against him in the hush money trial should have been shielded by presidential immunity. That includes testimony from some White House aides and social media posts made while he was in office.

The decision comes a day after Justice Samuel Alito confirmed that he took a phone call from Trump the day before the president-elect’s lawyers filed their emergency motion before the high court. The justice said the call was about a clerk, not any upcoming or current cases.