President-elect Donald Trump has petitioned the United States Supreme Court to stay Friday’s sentencing in his New York criminal hush money case.
In a filing Wednesday morning, defense lawyers argued that sentencing Trump, who has attempted to halt the case on the grounds of presidential immunity, would harm “the institution of the presidency and the operations of the federal government.”
“Most fundamentally, forcing President Trump to defend a criminal case and appear for a criminal sentencing hearing at the apex of the Presidential transition creates a constitutionally intolerable risk of disruption to national security and America’s vital interests,” Trump’s legal counsel stated.
The Supreme Court requested a response from prosecutors in New York by Thursday at 10 a.m. ET.
When asked for comment, the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office stated that it would respond in court papers.
Later Wednesday, Trump’s lawyers filed an 11th-hour request with New York’s highest court to halt the case.
Trump’s lawyers warned New York’s Court of Appeals that continuing with the sentencing could result in “grave injustice and harm to the institution of the Presidency and the operations of the federal government,” in a filing that largely echoed Trump’s three other attempts to delay the case this week.
“Under the doctrine of sitting-President immunity, it is unconstitutional to conduct a criminal sentencing of the President-elect during a Presidential transition, and doing so threatens to disrupt that transition and undermine the incoming President’s ability to effectively wield the Executive power of the United States,” argued Trump’s attorneys, who took the unusual step of requesting the same relief from two different courts.
The request will be reviewed by a single judge with the authority to stay the case, and no oral arguments are expected. Trump’s previous attempts to sway the New York Court of Appeals, such as his challenges to gag orders in criminal and civil cases, have failed.
Trump’s lawyers have petitioned the Supreme Court for an unprecedented intervention in the ongoing criminal case of a former president, whose appointment of three justices cemented the court’s conservative majority, that would effectively overturn his criminal conviction less than two weeks before his inauguration.
The move came after a New York appeals court denied Trump’s request to postpone his January 10 sentencing.
Trump was convicted in May of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related to a hush money payment made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels in order to improve his electoral prospects in the 2016 presidential election.
Trump asked the Supreme Court to consider whether he is entitled to a stay of proceedings during his appeal, whether presidential immunity prohibits the use of evidence related to official acts, and whether a president-elect has the same immunity as a sitting president.
If adopted by the justices, Trump’s argument for president-elect immunity could broaden the scope of presidential authority by temporarily granting a private citizen the absolute immunity reserved for a sitting president.
Trump’s attorneys contended that the Constitution and the doctrine of separation of powers “compel the conclusion that the President-elect is completely immune from criminal process.”
In a 6-3 decision last year, the Supreme Court expanded the scope of presidential immunity, ruling that a former president is presumed immune from criminal liability for any official acts and completely immune for actions related to his core responsibilities. The decision not only expanded the scope of presidential power, but it also overturned Trump’s criminal cases.
Despite that favorable opinion, Trump faces difficulty convincing the justices to postpone his sentencing. Even when a president-elect files an interlocutory appeal, the Supreme Court usually does not hear it.
The president-elect faces up to four years in prison, but New York Judge Juan Merchan has indicated that he intends to sentence Trump to an unconditional discharge — effectively a blemish on his record, with no prison, fines, or probation — in order to respect Trump’s transition efforts and the principle of presidential immunity.
Defense attorneys contended that the sentencing process “raises the specter of other possible restrictions on liberty.”
“Indeed, every adjudication of a felony conviction results in significant collateral consequences for the defendant, regardless of whether a term of imprisonment is imposed,” Trump’s attorneys argued, despite Judge Merchan’s decision not to impose any of the restrictions on Trump.
Trump’s lawyers also claimed that the former president’s conviction was based on evidence of official acts, such as his social media posts as president and testimony from close White House advisers.
Juan Merchan, the New York judge in the case, ruled that Trump’s conviction was “completely unofficial conduct” and “poses no danger of interfering with the authority and function of the executive branch.”
“This appeal will ultimately result in the dismissal of the District Attorney’s politically motivated prosecution that was flawed from the very beginning, centered 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,” the Supreme Court’s filing stated.
