Prosecutors from the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office have urged the U.S. Supreme Court to reject Donald Trump’s request to delay his sentencing hearing scheduled for Friday. This case revolves around the criminal charges tied to hush-money payments Trump made to adult film star Stormy Daniels before his first term as president.
Last year, Trump was found guilty by a jury on 34 felony charges for these payments. Now, he’s asking the Supreme Court to step in, arguing that the legal immunity given to a sitting president should also apply to a president-elect during the transition period. In his 51-page emergency application, Trump claimed that this time is crucial for preparing to take on the massive responsibilities of the presidency and should shield him from prosecution.
In response, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and his team submitted a 44-page filing urging the court to reject Trump’s request. They argued that Trump’s actions occurred while he was a private citizen and were unrelated to any official presidential duties. Bragg emphasized that there’s no such thing as “president-elect immunity” and warned that granting it would create a dangerous legal precedent.
Prosecutors pointed out that Trump’s claim of immunity has never been recognized by any court. They explained that presidential immunity applies only during a president’s term in office and only for official acts. Trump’s current legal troubles, they argued, are about personal actions he took as a private individual, not presidential duties.
The filing also noted that Trump’s request for the Supreme Court to intervene is extraordinary and premature. Bragg argued that state criminal trials are managed under state laws, and Trump hasn’t yet exhausted his legal options in New York’s courts.
New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan, who is overseeing the case, has already dismissed Trump’s claim of president-elect immunity. Both New York’s appellate court and highest court refused to halt the sentencing hearing.
Bragg and his team argued that recognizing such immunity would go against existing legal precedents. They pointed to past rulings that make it clear only the sitting president holds executive power and is protected by immunity for official acts during their term. Trump’s claim, they said, is not backed by any judicial decision or Department of Justice guidance.
Interestingly, even if the Supreme Court declines to intervene, Trump isn’t likely to face harsh consequences. Justice Merchan has indicated that he doesn’t plan to impose a jail sentence, even though it’s legally allowed. Instead, Merchan seems open to accommodating Trump’s role as president-elect, allowing him to attend the hearing remotely due to his busy transition schedule.
In a recent statement, Justice Merchan explained that while no final decision on sentencing has been made yet, incarceration doesn’t seem to be a practical option, especially since prosecutors are no longer recommending it.
This case, unfolding in New York City, highlights a heated debate over the limits of presidential immunity and whether those protections extend to the unique position of a president-elect. As the legal battle continues, all eyes are now on the Supreme Court to see if it will step into this politically charged case.