Three lower New York courts rejected Trump’s bid for a delay before the Supreme Court made a final decision Thursday night to allow the scheduled sentencing.
The justices rejected Trump’s motion because they believed his issues could be resolved on appeal.
They also wrote that the burden of being present at sentencing was “insignificant.”
Trump’s lawyers also asked the Supreme Court to consider whether president-elects have immunity from criminal prosecution.
Manhattan prosecutors urged the Supreme Court to reject Trump’s petition, arguing that there was a “compelling public interest” in the sentencing and that “there was no basis for such interference.”
Following the jury’s guilty verdict in May 2024, Trump was originally scheduled to be sentenced in July, but his lawyers successfully persuaded Judge Merchan to delay sentencing three times.
Last week, Judge Merchan announced that sentencing would take place on January 10, just days before Trump is sworn in again as president.
Since then, Trump’s lawyers have filed a barrage of appeals and court filings in an attempt to prevent the verdict.
But the appeals courts of New York soon rejected the applications.
Finally, on Wednesday, Trump’s lawyers appealed to the Supreme Court to intervene.
The court must stay the proceedings “to prevent grave injustice and harm to the institution of the presidency and the operation of the federal government,” they wrote.
The conservative 6-3 majority handed Trump a major victory last year when they ruled that US presidents are immune from prosecution for “official acts” committed in office.
The decision killed a federal prosecution against Trump on charges of illegal interference in the 2020 election, which he has denied and pleaded not guilty to.
But since his re-election, Trump’s lawyers have tried to convince a series of judges that presidential immunity protections should also apply to the president-elect in this Manhattan criminal case.
The Manhattan attorney’s office argued in its filing to the Supreme Court that “Trump’s claim of extraordinary immunity is not supported by any court decision.”
“It is an axiom that there is only one president at a time,” prosecutors wrote.
Separately, a group of former government officials and legal scholars filed an amicus brief — effectively a letter of support — with the Supreme Court asking it to reject Trump’s “attempt to avoid accountability.”
