President-elect Trump asks Supreme Court to block hush money case sentencing in New York

ORLANDO, Fla. - President-elect Donald Trump, whose victory was certified by Congress on Monday, is asking the Supreme Court to call off his hush money case sentencing scheduled for Friday in New York. 

Trump's lawyers turned to the Supreme Court Wednesday after the New York courts refused to postpone the sentencing, which is set to be done by Judge Juan M. Merchan, who presided over Trump’s trial and conviction last May on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. Trump has denied the allegations, claiming he did nothing wrong.

Related article: Judge denies Trump's bid to halt Friday's hush money case sentencing while they appeal to block it

Prosecutors are set to respond by Thursday morning. Trump’s team argues the felony conviction, even without jail time, fines, or probation, would unjustly impact his presidential duties and federal operations.

The emergency motion was filed by John Sauer, Trump's choice for solicitor general, who represents the government before the Supreme Court, and Todd Blanche, who is expected to serve as the second-ranking official at the Justice Department.

Related article: Trump’s popular vote win is GOP's first in 20 years

Trump's lawyers cited a Supreme Court ruling granting presidents broad immunity from prosecutions for actions in office, arguing it supports overturning his New York conviction. They claimed the trial court cannot proceed with sentencing or further criminal proceedings while Trump's appeal on presidential immunity is unresolved. His spokesman, Steven Cheung, called the case politically motivated, and Trump also filed an emergency appeal with New York's highest court.

The Manhattan district attorney's office plans to respond to Trump’s emergency motion, which was submitted to Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Trump’s convictions stem from allegations of covering up a $130,000 hush money payment to Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election—claims he denies.

Trump’s lawyers argue that a Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity in a separate case should shield evidence used in his trial, including testimony from White House aides and his social media posts. However, Judge Merchan ruled this evidence related to personal business, not official acts, aligning with the limits of the immunity ruling.