The Supreme Court rejected Trump’s bid to stay the ruling in the hush money case

The president-elect reacted angrily to the decision on Thursday evening, telling reporters that it was a “disgrace” but also that it was “actually a fair decision”.

“This is a judge who should not be on the job,” he said, apparently referring to Justice Merchan, adding that “they can have fun with their political opponent.”

Two of the Supreme Court’s conservative justices — John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett — joined three liberals in the majority to reject Trump’s request for a delay.

The remaining four justices — Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh — would uphold Trump’s proposal.

Alito was criticized for telling Trump in a phone call the day before the decision that the top judge recommended one of his former law secretaries to serve in the incoming president’s administration.

Three lower New York courts rejected Trump’s bid for a delay before the Supreme Court issued its final order Thursday evening to allow the sentencing to proceed as scheduled.

The justices rejected Trump’s appeal because they believed his concerns could be resolved on appeal.

They also wrote that the burden of participating in the sentencing was “insignificant.”

Trump’s lawyers also asked the Supreme Court to consider whether presidents-elect should be immune from criminal prosecution.

Manhattan prosecutors had urged the Supreme Court to reject Trump’s petition, arguing that there was a “compelling public interest” in the sentencing and “no basis for such interference.”

After the jury’s guilty verdict in May 2024, Trump was originally scheduled to be sentenced in July, but his attorneys successfully persuaded Justice Merchan to postpone the sentencing on three separate occasions.

Last week, Justice Merchan announced that sentencing would move forward to January 10, just days before Trump is sworn in again as president.

The days since have seen multiple appeals and court filings from Trump’s lawyers trying to avoid the verdict.

But the New York appeals courts quickly rejected the proposals.

Finally, on Wednesday, Trump’s lawyers petitioned the Supreme Court to intervene.

The court must stay the proceedings “to prevent grave injustice and damage to the institution of the presidency and the operations of the federal government.”

A 6-3 conservative majority in the House of Commons handed Trump a landslide victory last year when it ruled that US presidents are immune from criminal prosecution for “official acts” in office.

The decision dropped 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 number of judges that this protection of presidential immunity should apply to the president-elect in the Manhattan criminal case.

Manhattan prosecutors argued in their brief to the Supreme Court that Trump’s “claim of extraordinary immunity is not supported by any court decision.”

Prosecutors wrote that “it is axiomatic that there is only one president at a time.”

Separately, a group of former government officials and lawyers filed an amicus brief — effectively a letter of support — with the Supreme Court, asking the justices to reject Trump’s “attempt to evade responsibility.”

In another legal setback for Trump on Thursday, a federal appeals court in Georgia rejected a bid to block the release of part of a report by special counsel Jack Smith on Trump’s alleged plan to prevent the transfer of power to Joe Biden after the 2020 election.

Attorneys for former aide Walt Nauta and former Mar-a-Lago property manager Carlos de Oliveira argued the release would unfairly prejudice potential future criminal cases against them.