Supreme Court denies Trump bid to stay sentencing in New York criminal case

Trump was found guilty on 34 counts of falsifying business records last May

US president-elect Donald Trump was convicted on 34 counts of falsifying business records to hide payments sent to people with scandalous stories. Bloomberg

The US Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that Donald Trump's sentencing in his New York hush-money conviction should take place as planned on Friday, after his lawyers asked justices to block the hearing even though he is unlikely to face a prison sentence.

New York Judge Juan Merchan, who is overseeing the case, ruled last week that Mr Trump must appear either in-person or virtually for a sentencing hearing on Friday. He has refused to postpone the sentencing after multiple requests to do so.

Despite jail time being highly unlikely, Mr Trump's legal team argued to the nation's highest court that the sentencing should be postponed to "prevent grave injustice and harm to the institution of the Presidency and the operations of the federal government" given the presidential transition before the January 20 inauguration.

HIs lawyers also pointed to a pivotal Supreme Court ruling last summer where they ruled Mr Trump and other US presidents had broad immunity for actions taken during office.

The New York charges, however, do not cover acts taken during his first presidency.

In May of last year, Mr Trump was found guilty on 34 counts of falsifying business records in order to cover up payments to multiple people who claimed to have disparaging stories about the Republican during his 2016 presidential campaign.

He became the first living or former US president to ever be convicted of a crime.

Mr Merchan appeared to signal that a sentencing would likely not involve probation, fines or other punishments as they'd not be “practicable”, instead opting for an “unconditional discharge”.

The move would formalise Mr Trump as a convicted felon – also a first for anyone entering the White House.

Mr Merchan wrote that an “unconditional discharge” is likely considering the circumstances of trying to honour the work of a 12-member jury and respecting the timing of Mr Trump entering a new presidency.

Mr Trump tried multiple venues to halt the sentencing in New York courts before filing with the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court's decision is likely to come under criticism since ABC News reported on Wednesday that Mr Trump spoke with Justice Samuel Alito just hours before his legal team filed the emergency request on the New York case.

Mr Alito said that he did not discuss the matter with Mr Trump on the call, and that their chat was about the recommendation of a former law clerk for the incoming administration.

ABC said such discussions are not unusual between a president-elect and justices, though the timing around a developing criminal case raised eyebrows.