The Supreme Court rejected Trump’s request to stay the sentencing in the money laundering case

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected a last-minute bid by Trump to halt Friday’s sentencing in a criminal money laundering case.

The president-elect called on the high court to consider whether he was entitled to an automatic stay, but the justices rejected the request 5-4.

Trump was found guilty of falsifying documents to disguise $130,000 in compensation to adult film star Stormy Daniels as legal expenses in 2016.

Judge Juan Mercan, who is overseeing the case, indicated in a recent ruling that he would not consider prison time for Trump.

Two conservative Supreme Court justices — John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett — joined the three liberals in the majority.

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 sentencing to proceed as scheduled.

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.

Manhattan prosecutors argued in a filing to the Supreme Court that “Trump’s claim for emergency 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.”