Trump appeals NY case to USSC and they ask Bragg for a response by Thursday

Many figured this would be rejected without a look by the high court, but...

The Supreme Court directed prosecutors to respond to Mr. Trump’s application by Thursday morning, an indication that the justices may act before the scheduled sentencing on Friday.

There seems to be some confusion about what the Trump team was arguing, but at the end of the day they appear to be arguing that the entering of the verdict and sentencing should be stayed until his appeals regarding Presidential immunity can be heard. Not sure where some of the other arguments are coming from, but this is what the appeal suggests.

This Court should enter an immediate stay of further proceedings in the New York trial court to prevent grave injustice and harm to the institution of the Presidency and the operations of the federal government. The commencement of President Trump’s interlocutory appeal raising claims of Presidential immunity causes an automatic stay of proceedings in the trial court under Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593 (2024) (“Trump”), and related case law. 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. In the meantime, the New York trial court lacks authority to impose sentence and judgment on President Trump—or conduct any further criminal proceedings against him—until the resolution of his underlying appeal raising substantial claims of Presidential immunity, including by review in this Court if necessary.

I get that they are ultimately suggesting that the case will be overturned, but at this point they are asking for a stay of the ongoing steps of entering the verdict and the sentencing. He is not asking the USSC for a reversal of the conviction at this point (which is what some appear to be suggesting). He is just offering that a stay should be provided while immunity is hashed out.

I think in this case the potential harm caused to Trump if he were to be sentenced and later wins on appeal is much greater than the potential harm of Bragg and Merchan having to wait to enter the verdict until this appeal has been completed. Because immunity is something that should have been argued prior to the trial and because Merchan did not bother to wait for the ruling, it would not shock me if the high court ultimately granted the stay without really demanding that they have strong feelings about the merits either way. I think as a matter of legal principal, Trump should be able to have litigated this pre-trial, but Merchan was set in getting this done before the election. I believe that might be the argument that would best sway the high court to issue the stay.

Obviously this would set off the left and cause them to further demand this is a right wing court that is simply in Trump's pocket. But this issue must be weighed against Roberts recent complaints about how so many lower court Judges continue to ignore their rulings as if they do not matter. So while they may or may not weigh these two issues, at the end of the day they should ultimately look at the case on the merits. Not necessarily the case as a whole, but simply whether or not Bragg using witnesses and evidence that would have been considered immune from use under the courts ruling is strong enough to grant a stay. While often they consider the chances of legal success when issuing a stay, I don't believe Merchan really provided enough time here to settle that argument before Friday. The only question is whether or not the situation warrants a stay of sentencing until this is resolved.

It seems somewhat logical that it should.