Supreme Court won’t block Trump’s sentencing in hush-money case

A state jury found Trump guilty last May of 34 felonies for falsifying business records, part of a conspiracy that prosecutors said was intended to suppress damaging information before his victory in the November 2016 presidential election. The trial judge, Justice Juan Merchan, indicated last week that in light of Trump’s coming inauguration, a prison term was off the table and an unconditional discharge, or sentence with no punishment, was “the most viable solution."

But Trump’s team, even as it pursues legal appeals through the state court system, had sought to spare him the stigma of the hearing—and of being formally branded a felon—days before he returns to the White House. His lawyers argued that even a sentence with no punishment would interfere with the presidential transition and undercut Trump’s authority as president.

“A felony conviction results in significant collateral consequences for the defendant, regardless of whether a term of imprisonment is imposed," they said in legal papers. Those could include “restrictions on liberty, such as travel, reporting requirements, registration, probationary requirements, and others," alongside the “public stigma" felons carry, they said.

Manhattan prosecutors in response argued there was no basis for the Supreme Court to intervene. The proceedings had already been postponed six months at Trump’s request, and the burden of Friday’s sentencing was minimal because Trump didn’t have to appear in person and was facing no substantive punishment, they said.

Trump’s argument to cancel the sentencing hearing sprang directly from his claim that the conviction should be thrown out because of the Supreme Court’s July decision in a separate case filed by special counsel Jack Smith. That decision derailed a federal criminal indictment of Trump for allegedly scheming to stop President Biden from taking power after the 2020 election, and it gave former presidents a broad degree of immunity from prosecution for official acts while in office.

D. John Sauer, who successfully argued Trump’s 2024 Supreme Court case, led the legal team seeking to stop Friday’s sentencing. Trump has announced his intention to nominate Sauer for solicitor general, a senior Justice Department position that represents the government before the Supreme Court.

Smith, who had sought to salvage elements of the case after the July decision, dropped the matter following Trump’s November victory, under Justice Department guidelines that prevent prosecution of a sitting president. Trump has sought to block the department from releasing Smith’s report on his investigation, which the special counsel submitted this week to Attorney General Merrick Garland.

Although the New York case originated in Trump’s actions as a private citizen running for office, some of the evidence prosecutors introduced involved things he did after winning the 2016 election to consummate the deal with Daniels and respond to news reports regarding his alleged affairs with her and a onetime Playboy centerfold, Karen McDougal. Trump, who has denied Daniels’s and McDougal’s claims, argued that material from his time in the Oval Office shouldn’t have been introduced under rules the Supreme Court created in its July decision.

Merchan rejected Trump’s arguments, finding his crimes involved his private doings rather than official business as president.

The Supreme Court’s most recent action came days after Trump spoke by phone with Justice Samuel Alito, who formed part of the six-member majority that hamstrung Smith’s case. The Tuesday phone call, first reported by ABC News, was instigated by William Levi, a former Alito law clerk who served as Attorney General William Barr’s chief of staff in the first Trump administration, Alito said in a statement to the network.

Levi is seeking a position in the forthcoming Trump administration and requested Alito’s personal recommendation to the president-elect, Alito said. The justice said that he was unaware when he spoke to the president-elect that Trump would ask for the court’s intervention in the New York case, and that they didn’t discuss that matter or anything pending or previously before the Supreme Court.

Corinne Ramey contributed to this article.

Write to Jess Bravin at Jess.Bravin@wsj.com