President-elect Donald Trump petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) to delay his sentencing in the New York hush-money case. He argued that proceeding Friday, Jan. 10 could disrupt national security and hinder the presidential transition.

Trump’s legal team contended that sentencing a president-elect poses significant risks to the federal government and national security. They argued presidential immunity should shield Trump and warned that moving forward creates what they call “a constitutionally intolerable risk.”

Download the SAN app today to stay up-to-date with Unbiased. Straight Facts™.

Point phone camera here

The legal team’s request references a 2024 SCOTUS ruling that expanded presidential protections. It granted former presidents broad immunity for actions deemed part of their official duties.

SCOTUS asked New York prosecutors to respond to the petition by Thursday morning, leaving a narrow window before the Friday deadline.

If the justices grant a stay, Trump’s sentencing could be delayed indefinitely, given the limited time before his January inauguration.

Once inaugurated, legal precedent suggests he may regain immunity from criminal prosecution.

Trump’s hush money case

The case stems from hush money payments made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels during his 2016 campaign.

A grand jury convicted Trump in May 2024 on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related to hush money payments intended to influence the outcome of the 2016 election.

Legal experts noted that such payments may violate campaign finance laws, as they could be viewed as unreported election expenditures.

The trial judge, however, indicated plans to issue an unconditional discharge, a sentence that avoids jail time, fines or probation. The judge cited the importance of preserving the presidential transition process and respecting the principles of presidential immunity.

Despite the absence of penalties, Trump’s legal team argued that a felony conviction carries significant consequences. These consequences include harm to his reputation and potential future restrictions.

Trump’s lawyers also claimed the case relies on evidence of his time in office, such as social media posts and testimony from former advisers. They argued that they should be immune under the expanded protections for former presidents.

Get up to speed on the stories leading the day every weekday morning. Sign up for the newsletter today!

Learn more about our emails. Unsubscribe anytime.

Enter your email for newsletter updates Subscribe

By entering your email, you agree to the Terms & Conditions and acknowledge the Privacy Policy.

Judge rejects Trump team’s arguments

Judge Juan Merchan rejected the Trump team’s arguments. He asserted that the case is unrelated to Trump’s official duties and does not intrude upon the executive branch authority. The judge ruled that the charges pertain to private actions taken before and during his first campaign.

Legal analysts highlighted the historical weight of the proceedings. If the sentencing proceeds, Trump would become the first president-elect formally sentenced as a felon. The case has drawn attention for its potential to reshape the understanding of presidential immunity, especially regarding actions taken outside official capacities.

SCOTUS is expected to decide as early as Thursday, Jan. 9, whether to grant Trump’s request. Its decision could set a significant precedent, not just for Trump’s case, but for the broader scope of presidential immunity and the handling of criminal cases involving future presidents.