In a filing Wednesday morning, defense lawyers argued that sentencing Trump - who has attempted to stop the case based on presidential immunity - would damage "the institution of the Presidency and the operations of the federal government. "
"Most fundamentally, forcing President Trump to defend a criminal case and appear for a criminal sentencing hearing at the apex of the Presidential transition creates a constitutionally intolerable risk of disruption to national security and America's vital interests," Trump's lawyers said.
With their application to the Supreme Court, Trump's lawyers have asked the country's highest court for an unprecedented intervention in the ongoing criminal case of a former president -- whose appointment of three justices cemented the court's conservative majority - that would effectively toss his criminal conviction less than two weeks ahead of his inauguration.
The move came after a New York appeals court on Tuesday denied Trump's request to delay the Jan. 10 sentencing. Trump was found guilty in May on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related to a hush money payment ahead of the 2016 presidential election that a judge later described as a "premeditated and continuous deception by the leader of the free world."
Trump asked the Supreme Court to consider whether he is entitled to a stay of the proceedings during his appeal; whether presidential immunity prevents the use of evidence related to official acts; and whether a president-elect is entitled to the same immunity as a sitting president.
If adopted by the justices, Trump's argument about immunity for a president-elect could expand the breadth of presidential authority, temporarily providing a private citizen with the absolute immunity reserved for a sitting president.
Trump's lawyers argued that the Constitution and doctrine of separation of powers "compel the conclusion that the President-elect is completely immune from criminal process."
In a 6-3 decision last year, the Supreme Court broadened the limits of presidential immunity, finding that a former president is presumptively immune from criminal liability for any official acts and absolutely immune for actions related to his core duties. The decision not only expanded the limits of presidential power but also upended the criminal cases faced by Trump.
Despite that favorable opinion, Trump faces uncertainty in convincing the justices to halt his sentencing. The Supreme Court does not typically take on random interlocutory appeals, even by a president-elect.
While New York Judge Juan Merchan signaled he plans to sentence Trump to an unconditional discharge - the lowest possible sentence in the state - to respect Trump's transition efforts and the principle of presidential immunity, defense lawyers argued that sentencing still "raises the specter of other possible restrictions on liberty."
"Indeed, every adjudication of a felony conviction results in significant collateral consequences for the defendant, regardless of whether a term of imprisonment is imposed," Trump's lawyers argued, despite Judge Merchan's plan not to impose any of the restrictions on Trump.
Trump's lawyers also argued that the former president's conviction relied on evidence of official acts, including his social media posts as president and testimony from his close White House advisers. The New York judge in the case, Juan Merchan, ruled that Trump's conviction related "entirely to unofficial conduct" and "poses no danger of intrusion on the authority and function of the Executive Branch."
"This appeal will ultimately result in the dismissal of the District Attorney's politically motivated prosecution that was flawed from the very beginning, centered around the wrongful actions and false claims of a disgraced, disbarred serial-liar former attorney, violated President Trump's due process rights, and had no merit," Trump's filing to the Supreme Court said.