Two courts aren’t enough – not for Donald Trump, not on a Thursday.

His hush money criminal trial and Supreme Court hearing, legal events one and two, were already under way when he scored the hat-trick.

A New York judge announced he was upholding the verdict and the $83m damages award against Trump for defaming writer E Jean Carroll.

There’s a lot going on, legally, and there’s a lot riding on all of it for Trump.

Catch up: how the day unfolded in court

The hearing at the Supreme Court concerned the 6 January riots, election subversion and Trump’s alleged involvement. It is a crime against democracy, at the serious end of the legal jeopardy he faces.

His lawyers argued he should be shielded by immunity from prosecution for what he did while acting as president.

The prosecution’s case is that he was acting as a private citizen, not in an official capacity.

Trump wasn’t present at the hearing in Washington DC, but he will have liked what he heard.

Follow Sky News on WhatsApp

Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News

Tap here

The prevailing legal assessment is that discussions with the nine-judge panel indicate that, while they didn’t necessarily agree with his argument for immunity, they have enough questions to delay the prosecution further.

A majority appear to think that presidents have some immunity from criminal prosecution for their official actions, even if the exact parameters are unclear.

Read more:
Porn stars, sex scandals and zzzs: A to Z of hush money trial
Newspaper chief was Trump’s ‘eyes and ears’
Adam Boulton: What Liz Truss and Donald Trump have in common

What is clear is that if the trial court is instructed to determine which of Trump’s allegedly illegal acts qualify for immunity as official acts, it will be an extended process that could easily push the trial beyond the November election.

Such a scenario would suit Trump. The less criminal exposure he has before America votes, the better for him.

If he can push the trial past November, and win back the White House, he can use the power of office to make the charges go away.

The New York hush money trial is the only one of four criminal prosecutions to have begun.

The Supreme Court appears set to shorten the odds on it being the only one before America goes to the polls.

It is the pressing matter of the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about the man who would be president, and it’s a race against time.

This stress test of the fundamentals of American democracy and rule of law gets ever more stressful.

Donald Trump managed a partial victory in the Supreme Court today, as justices delayed any potential decision on his immunity case over election riots.

Trump argued on Thursday he has total immunity over the 2020 riots and while justices in the Supreme Court were not convinced by his arguments, some raised the point he may have some level of immunity – and delayed any potential decision on that until June.

If they then rule the former president does have a level of immunity, it could kick the issue back into lower courts to decide what that level is, and knock back any potential decision to beyond the November election.

On Thursday, Trump, who made history as his country’s first ex-leader to face a criminal trial, was also fighting on two other separate legal fronts. They include:

• His hush money trial in New York where he is accused of falsifying business records after allegedly paying money to porn actress Stormy Daniels to “cover up an affair”.

• His defamation case, brought by writer E Jean Carroll – a judge rejected Trump’s attempt to throw out the verdict against him, leaving him facing an $83.3m (£66.5m) payout.

And adding to Trump’s legal woes, his former lawyers and associates were indicted on Wednesday in a 2020 election-related scheme in Arizona.

Follow latest: Trump’s hush money and Supreme Court trials
Analysis: Trump has won qualified victory at Supreme Court

Supreme Court

During proceedings, justices appeared likely to reject Trump’s claims of total immunity, but delayed any ruling to make a decision over what specific immunity he may or may not have.

Trump, 77, had even asked to skip his New York criminal proceedings to sit in on the Supreme Court’s special sessions.

In Washington, the lawyer representing the special counsel told the court it had never been previously recognised what kind of immunity Trump was actually seeking.

Chief justice John Roberts said he was concerned if presidents were not immune, the country would rely on “good faith” to prevent abusive prosecutions against presidents.

Read more from Sky News:
Harvey Weinstein’s 2020 rape conviction overturned
Dolphin found shot dead on beach
US considers cutting funds to notorious Israeli army unit

He told the special counsel’s lawyer, Michael Dreeben: “Now you know how easy it is in many cases for a prosecutor to get a grand jury to bring an indictment.

“And reliance on the good faith of the prosecutor may not be enough in some cases – I’m not suggesting here [Smith’s indictment of Trump].”

The Supreme Court is expected to release its opinions by the end of June over whether Trump has immunity or not.

With five justices appearing likely to reject Trump’s claims of absolute immunity, some suggested the former president may have some level of immunity.

If the eventual ruling reflects that, lower courts may be required to sort out the specifics of this – which could push any eventual decision past the November election.

Hush money

Meanwhile, in New York, Trump was once again present in Manhattan’s criminal court, accused of falsifying business records.

Earlier this week, the court heard from AMI, the former publisher of the National Enquirer, about an alleged “catch and kill” scheme, which was said to have been used to get rid of negative stories about Trump.

David Pecker, boss of AMI who signed a no-prosecution deal to testify, described shelling out hundreds of thousands of dollars to buy up rights to potentially damaging stories.

The National Enquirer, the court heard, bought up a sordid story from a New York City doorman as well as accusations of an extramarital affair with a former Playboy model to stop the claims getting out.

But Mr Pecker reached his breaking point with Stormy Daniels – a porn actress who was allegedly paid by Michael Cohen, Trump’s former lawyer, to keep quiet over her claims of a 2006 sexual encounter with Trump. Something he denies.

Mr Pecker told jurors his publication had been contacted by Ms Daniels’s representatives who said they could buy her story for $120,000 (£96,000) if it decided right away.

However, the publishing boss refused to. He told Mr Cohen: “I am not paying for this story. I didn’t want to be involved in this from the beginning.”

After that, a cross-examination of Mr Pecker began, with one of Trump’s lawyers, Emil Bove, taking centre stage.

Gag order

Hanging over Thursday’s hush money proceedings were allegations that Trump, once again, violated a gag order.

The order restricted Trump’s public speech regarding jurors, potential witnesses and some other individuals involved in the case.

Judge Juan Merchan was already considering whether to hold Trump in contempt and fine him for what prosecutors alleged were 10 separate violations of the order.

But on Thursday the prosecution ticked off fresh instances of alleged breaches.

These were additional remarks made about Mr Cohen, and a comment Trump made about the jury being “95% Democrats”, among other things.

But Trump was previously dismissive about the threat of having to pay up when speaking outside court, saying he had “no idea” whether he would be fined.

Follow Sky News on WhatsApp

Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News

Tap here

E Jean Carroll

While things may have went his way partly in the Supreme Court, a judge rejected Trump’s attempt to get a defamation verdict against him thrown out.

Writer E Jean Carroll said Trump defamed her after she accused him of raping her decades ago.

The court ordered Trump to pay $83.3m in damages, and on Thursday, US district judge Lewis Kaplan said Trump was not entitled to a new trial or judgement, so had to pay up.

A New York court has overturned Harvey Weinstein’s 2020 conviction for rape, ordering a new trial in the landmark “MeToo” case.

The state’s highest court found the judge at the trial prejudiced the ex-movie mogul with “egregious” improper rulings, including a decision to let women testify about allegations that weren’t part of the case.

In a 4-3 decision, the ruling by the Court of Appeals will mean a painful chapter in reckoning with sexual misconduct by powerful figures looks likely to be reopened.

It was an era that began in 2017 with a flood of allegations against Weinstein dating back to the 1970s.

Weinstein’s accusers could again be forced to relive their traumas on the witness stand.

The 72-year-old former film producer has been serving a 23-year sentence in a New York prison for sexually assaulting ex-production assistant Mimi Haleyi in 2006 and raping former aspiring actress Jessica Mann in 2013 following the landmark 2020 trial.

However, he will remain behind bars as he was sentenced last year in Los Angeles to 16 years in prison for raping and sexually assaulting an actress in a Beverly Hills Hotel.

The Los Angeles conviction is not affected by today’s decision in New York.

Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg – who is already involved in a hush money trial against former president Donald Trump – will now decide whether Weinstein will receive a retrial.

A spokesperson for Mr Bragg said in an email: “We will do everything in our power to retry this case, and remain steadfast in our commitment to survivors of sexual assault.”

Douglas Wigdor, a lawyer who represented eight of Weinstein’s accusers said today’s decision was a “major step back in holding those accountable for acts of sexual violence,” adding: “It will require the victims to endure yet another trial.”

Once considered the most powerful man in Hollywood, Weinstein was accused by dozens of women claiming he bullied, pressured, coerced, or overpowered them while demanding sexual favours.

Gwyneth Paltrow, Salma Hayek, Lupita Nyong’o and Ashley Judd were some who accused Weinstein of sexual harassment, while actresses Asia Argento and Rose McGowan were among others who accused him of raping them.

He was also accused of reaching settlements to keep the stories quiet.

Weinstein had admitted his behaviour had “caused a lot of pain”, but maintains his innocence throughout saying any sexual activity was consensual.

The glut of allegations sparked #Metoo, a movement where alleged victims of sexual assault increasingly publicised their experiences, and many came forward against high-profile figures, especially in the entertainment industry.

Weinstein co-founded the entertainment company Miramax in 1979 whose hit movies included Pulp Fiction, Flirting with Disaster and Shakespeare in Love.

He was ousted from his own firm, The Weinstein Company, in 2017 after the New York Times reported nearly 30 years of rape and sexual harassment allegations towards him.

This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly.

Please refresh the page for the fullest version.

You can receive breaking news alerts on a smartphone or tablet via the Sky News app. You can also follow @SkyNews on X or subscribe to our YouTube channel to keep up with the latest news.