In an unprecedented move, President-elect Donald Trump has appealed to the US Supreme Court to prevent the sentencing scheduled for Friday in his New York hush-money case.
Trump’s defence attorneys filed a request on Wednesday morning, arguing that proceeding with sentencing would undermine “the institution of the Presidency and the operations of the federal government.”
According to his legal team, forcing Trump to defend a criminal case and appear for sentencing during the crucial period of presidential transition presents “a constitutionally intolerable risk of disruption to national security and America’s vital interests.”
The US Supreme Court has directed prosecutors in New York to respond by Thursday at 10 a.m. ET. The Manhattan District Attorney’s Office confirmed that it will address the matter in court papers.
Trump’s lawyers have asked the highest court to intervene in a way that could reshape the legal landscape for future presidents.
They are seeking a decision on whether Trump can benefit from presidential immunity during his appeal, whether evidence related to official actions can be used in his case, and whether a president-elect is entitled to immunity similar to that of a sitting president. If the Court agrees to consider these arguments, it could potentially extend the same immunity given to a sitting president to a president-elect.
This request follows the decision of a New York appeals court, which on Tuesday rejected Trump’s bid to delay the sentencing scheduled for January 10.
The charges stem from a case in which Trump was found guilty of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related to a hush money payment made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels. The payment was made during the 2016 presidential campaign in an effort to influence the election.
In the filing to the Supreme Court, Trump’s legal team emphasized that the Constitution and the doctrine of separation of powers require that a president-elect be immune from criminal proceedings. The defence argued that “the President-elect is completely immune from criminal process.”
This appeal follows a 6-3 decision by the Supreme Court last year that expanded presidential immunity. That ruling found that former presidents are presumptively immune from criminal liability for official acts and enjoy absolute immunity for actions related to their core duties.
However, despite the favourable precedent, Trump faces an uphill battle in persuading the justices to halt his sentencing. The Court rarely intervenes in cases like this, especially for a sitting or incoming president.
Should the case proceed to sentencing, Trump faces up to four years in prison. However, New York Judge Juan Merchan has indicated that he plans to sentence Trump to an unconditional discharge, which would avoid prison time, fines, or probation, in consideration of Trump’s transition to office and the concept of presidential immunity.
Trump’s legal team warned that even without imprisonment, a conviction would carry significant consequences. They argued that “every adjudication of a felony conviction results in significant collateral consequences for the defendant, regardless of whether a term of imprisonment is imposed.”
The defence further claimed that the conviction relied on evidence related to official acts, including Trump’s actions as president, his social media posts, and testimony from White House advisors. However, Judge Merchan ruled that Trump’s conviction was based “entirely on unofficial conduct” and does not interfere with the Executive Branch’s authority.
Trump’s lawyers have insisted that the case is politically motivated, stating, “This appeal will ultimately result in the dismissal of the District Attorney’s politically motivated prosecution that was flawed from the very beginning, centred around the wrongful actions and false claims of a disgraced, disbarred, serial liar former attorney, violated President Trump’s due process rights, and had no merit.”
