The Supreme Court rejects Trump's request to stay the sentence in the hush money case

The US Supreme Court rejected President-elect Donald Trump's last-minute request to stay his sentence on Friday in a money-for-crime case.

Trump asked the Supreme Court to consider whether he has the right to have his sentence revoked, but the justices rejected the request 5-4.

Trump was found guilty of falsifying records to hide reimbursements for a $130,000 payment to former movie star Stormy Daniels in legal fees in 2016.

Justice Juan Merchan, who presided over the case, indicated that he would not consider Trump's sentence.

Responding on Thursday evening, the president-elect told reporters that the case was “shameful”, although the decision of the Supreme Court was “a just decision.”

“It's a judge that shouldn't have been in this case,” he said, apparently referring to Justice Merchan, adding that “they can have fun with their political rival”.

Two Supreme Court justices – John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett – joined three liberals in rejecting Trump's request for a delay.

The remaining four justices – Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh – would have granted Trump's request to postpone the sentence.

Alito was criticized for talking to Trump a day before the ruling in a phone call when the top judge recommended one of his law clerks to work with the incoming president's administration.

Three lower New York courts rejected Trump's bid for a delay before the Supreme Court made its final decision Thursday evening to allow the sentencing to go ahead as planned.

The justices denied Trump's request because they believed his concerns could be resolved during an appeal.

They also wrote that the burden of attending the sentencing is “not great”.

Trump's lawyers also asked the Supreme Court to consider whether president-elects are immune from criminal prosecution.

Manhattan prosecutors urged the Supreme Court to reject Trump's request, saying there was a “compelling public interest” in imposing the sentence and that there was “no basis for such intervention”.

After the judge's decision in May 2024, Trump was expected to be sentenced in July, but his lawyers succeeded in persuading Justice Merchan to delay the sentence three separate times.

Last week, Justice Merchan announced that the sentence will go forward on January 10, just days before Trump is sworn in as president.

Since then there have been a number of appeals and court filings from Trump's lawyers, trying to block the sentence.

But in quick succession, New York courts rejected the bids. Finally on Wednesday, Trump's lawyers asked the Supreme Court to intervene.

The court should stop the proceedings “to prevent serious injustice and damage to the institution of the Presidency and the functioning of the federal government”, they wrote.

Last year, a 6-3 conservative bench majority handed Trump a major victory, when they ruled that US presidents are immune from criminal prosecution for “official acts” done in office.

That decision included the prosecution of Trump on charges of illegal interference in the outcome of the 2020 election, which he denies and has pleaded not guilty.

But since his re-election, Trump's lawyers have tried to persuade a series of judges that those presidential immunity protections should also apply to the president-elect in the Manhattan criminal case.

Manhattan prosecutors argued in their Supreme Court brief that Trump's claim of “unusual immunity is not supported by any decision of any court”.

“It is unfortunate that there is only one President at a time,” prosecutors wrote.

Separately, a group of former government officials and legal experts filed an amicus brief – a letter of support – to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to reject “Trump's attempts to avoid accountability”.

In another legal setback for Trump on Thursday, a Georgia appeals court rejected a request to block the release of part of special counsel Jack Smith's report on Trump's alleged conspiracy to block the transfer of power to Joe Biden after the 2020 election.

Attorneys for Walt Nauta, a former assistant, and former Mar-a-Lago property manager Carlos de Oliveira had argued that the release would unduly interfere with possible criminal charges against them.