The U.S. Supreme Court, late Thursday, narrowly denied Donald Trump’s request to delay his criminal hush money sentencing, clearing the way for the president-elect to be sentenced Friday morning in New York.
Four of the nine justices — Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh — indicated they would have granted Trump’s request to halt his sentencing.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Trump-appointee Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the court’s three liberal justices to deny Trump the relief he sought.
The ruling came after New York’s highest court, the Court of Appeals, declined a separate request from Trump to block the sentencing.
Trump intends to attend the sentencing virtually from his Mar-a-Lago estate, according to court filings, and Judge Juan Merchan has signaled his plan to impose an unconditional discharge — effectively a blemish on Trump’s record, without prison, fines or probation — in order to respect Trump’s transition efforts and the principle of presidential immunity.
Trump had faced up to four years in prison after his conviction on 34 felony counts for falsifying business records to cover up a hush money payment ahead of the 2016 election. Judge Merchan described Trump’s actions as a “premeditated and continuous deception by the leader of the free world.”
Over the last week, the president-elect launched four unsuccessful efforts to block the sentencing, arguing he should be immune from prosecution as president-elect. His appeal had been denied by Merchan, New York’s Appellate Division, New York’s Court of Appeals, and now the Supreme Court of the United States.
In a brief filed to the Supreme Court late Thursday, Trump’s lawyers reiterated their position that Trump is entitled to immunity as president-elect.
“President Trump, the constitutional structure, and the nation are irreparably harmed by letting the sentencing go forward while there are no little to no harms in staying it,” wrote Trump attorney D. John Sauer, who Trump has nominated for solicitor general under his new administration.
Sauer wrote that allowing the sentencing to proceed would damage Trump’s transition effort and allow the criminal case to linger as he enters office, arguing that the president-elect would have to “choose between his immunity from criminal process once he is President or his right to appeal his sentence.”
Trump was found guilty in May on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related to a hush money payment made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels in order to boost his electoral prospects in the 2016 presidential election.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, whose office won the conviction against Trump, took a philosophical view Thursday afternoon as he awaited word of a possible Supreme Court ruling.
“It’s where we are,” Bragg said during a news conference. “We believe the sanctity of the jury verdict must be given primacy,” he said. “The jury’s voice must not be rubbed out.”
Prosecutors in Bragg’s office argued in a Thursday morning filing to the New York court, before the court made its ruling, that Trump’s argument to delay his sentencing rests on an “utterly baseless” concept of president-elect immunity, because a president-elect does not benefit from the immunity reserved for the sitting president.
“The President-elect is, by definition, not yet the President,” the filing said. “The President-elect therefore does not perform any Article II functions under the Constitution, and there are no Article II functions that would be burdened by ordinary criminal process involving the President-elect.”
Bragg also urged the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday to reject Trump’s request to block his sentencing, on the grounds that “there is no basis” for the country’s highest court to intervene.
“Defendant now asks this Court to take the extraordinary step of intervening in a pending state criminal trial to prevent the scheduled sentencing from taking place — before final judgment has been entered by the trial court, and before any direct appellate review of defendant’s conviction. There is no basis for such intervention,” Bragg wrote to the court.
Prosecutors argued that presidential immunity does not extend to Trump, who does not take office until Jan. 20.
“It is axiomatic that there is only one President at a time,” Bragg said. “No judicial decision or guidance from the Department of Justice has ever recognized that the unique temporary immunity of the sitting President extends to the President-elect.”
The district attorney’s office warned that delaying Trump’s sentencing would only make things worse, arguing “any stay here risks delaying the sentencing until after January 20, when defendant is inaugurated and his status as the sitting President will pose much more severe and potentially insuperable obstacles to sentencing and finality.”
Prosecutors told the New York Court of Appeals that the jury in Trump’s trial saw “overwhelming” evidence of Trump’s guilt. The filing also criticized the president-elect’s conduct in court.
“And notwithstanding defendant’s past and upcoming service as President, his history, character, and condition — and especially his open disregard for the justice system — do not support dismissal,” the filing said.
Prosecutors criticized Trump for repeatedly delaying the sentencing — leading to the Jan. 10 sentencing date — and exaggerating the harm he would face if the sentencing continued as planned.
The post Supreme Court narrowly rejects Trump’s last-ditch bid to avoid hush money sentencing appeared first on ABC News.
