US Supreme Court declines to halt Trump’s sentencing in New York hush money case
Sign up now: Get ST's newsletters delivered to your inbox
Donald Trump’s lawyers argued that having the case hang over him during his presidency would impede his ability to govern.
PHOTO: AFP
Follow topic:
NEW YORK – The US Supreme Court rejected on Jan 9 Donald Trump’s request to halt his sentencing in a New York state court for the President-elect’s conviction on criminal charges stemming from hush money paid to a porn star.
The court denied his last-minute bid to prevent his sentencing
Trump sought relief from the justices as he pursued a state court appeal to resolve questions of presidential immunity following a Supreme Court ruling last July that granted former presidents broad immunity from criminal prosecution for their official acts.
The justices acted after New York’s top court on Jan 9 rejected his request to halt his sentencing.
Manhattan prosecutors made a filing at the Supreme Court on Jan 9 morning, opposing Trump’s bid for a stay.
“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,” Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office wrote in a filing.
The trial judge in Trump’s case, Justice Juan Merchan, said last week he was not inclined to sentence the Republican President-elect to prison and would likely grant him unconditional discharge. This would place a guilty judgment on Trump’s record, but would not impose custody, a fine or probation.
Trump in a Supreme Court filing made public on Jan 8 asked for proceedings in the case to stop as he seeks an appeal to resolve questions of presidential immunity following the Supreme Court’s ruling last July that granted former presidents broad immunity from criminal prosecution for their official acts.
“This appeal will ultimately result in the dismissal of the District Attorney’s politically motivated prosecution that was flawed from the very beginning,” Trump’s lawyer John Sauer wrote in the filing.
The latter is Trump’s pick to serve as US solicitor general, the government’s chief lawyer at the Supreme Court.
Trump was found guilty last May of 34 counts of falsifying business records to cover up a US$130,000 (S$178,000) payment to porn star Stormy Daniels in exchange for her silence before the 2016 US election about a sexual encounter she has said she had with Trump a decade earlier, which he has denied. Prosecutors have said the payment was designed to help Trump’s chances in the election, when he defeated Democrat Hillary Clinton.
Trump is the first former US president to be criminally prosecuted and the first former president convicted of a crime.
He has denied any wrongdoing.
His lawyers contend that prosecutors improperly admitted evidence of Trump’s official acts during the trial. They also argue that, as President-elect, Trump is immune from prosecution during the period between his November election victory and his inauguration.
In their filing on Jan 9 to the Supreme Court, the New York prosecutors said “all of the evidence defendant challenged in his post-trial motion either concerned unofficial conduct that is not subject to any immunity, or is a matter of public record that is not subject to preclusion, as the trial court correctly held”.
As to Trump’s argument that he is immune as President-elect, the prosecutors said this “extraordinary immunity claim is unsupported by any decision from any court”.
“It is axiomatic that there is only one president at a time,” they added.
In the 6-3 July ruling authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Supreme Court said immunity for former presidents is “absolute” with respect to their “core constitutional powers” and a former president has “at least a presumptive immunity” for “acts within the outer perimeter of his official responsibility”, meaning prosecutors face a high legal bar to overcome that presumption.
Mr Merchan in December rejected Trump’s immunity argument, finding that the hush money case dealt with Trump’s personal conduct, not his official acts as president.
In urging the justices to halt Trump’s sentencing, his lawyers argued as President-elect, he is immune from prosecution “in the brief but crucial period” between his November election victory and his inauguration.
Ahead of last year’s election, the Supreme Court in August rejected a bid by the state of Missouri’s Republican attorney general to halt Trump’s sentencing. REUTERS
