Listen to the article
A federal appeals court breathed new life into former President Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn his hush money conviction on Thursday, ordering a lower court to reconsider its decision to keep the case in state rather than federal court.
The three-judge panel from the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein failed to consider “important issues relevant” to Trump’s request to transfer the New York case to the federal judicial system, where he could potentially have it dismissed on presidential immunity grounds.
The panel, however, emphasized they “express no view” on how Hellerstein should ultimately rule on the matter.
Hellerstein, who was appointed by Democratic President Bill Clinton, had twice rejected Trump’s requests to move the case – first following Trump’s March 2023 indictment and again after his May 2024 conviction, which came shortly before the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark ruling that presidents and former presidents cannot be prosecuted for official acts performed while in office.
In his most recent ruling, Hellerstein determined that Trump’s lawyers failed to meet the high threshold required for changing jurisdiction. He further noted that Trump’s conviction for falsifying business records involved his personal affairs rather than official presidential actions that would be protected under the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling.
The appeals court, however, found that Hellerstein “did not consider whether certain evidence admitted during the state court trial relates to immunized official acts” or whether such evidentiary immunity transformed the nature of the case. The panel directed Hellerstein to closely examine evidence that Trump claims relate to official presidential actions.
The three judges – Susan L. Carney, Raymond J. Lohier Jr., and Myrna Pérez, all appointed by Democratic presidents – instructed Hellerstein to determine whether prosecutors relied on evidence of official acts during trial. If so, he must evaluate whether Trump can legitimately argue these actions were taken as part of his presidential duties, whether Trump “diligently sought” to have the case transferred to federal court in a timely manner, and whether such a transfer is even possible now that Trump has been convicted and sentenced in state court.
“President Trump continues to win in his fight against Radical Democrat Lawfare,” a spokesperson for Trump’s legal team said in a statement. The Manhattan District Attorney’s office, led by Alvin Bragg, declined to comment on the ruling.
Trump was convicted in May 2024 on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to conceal a hush money payment to adult film actor Stormy Daniels. The payment was allegedly made to prevent Daniels’ claims of an affair with Trump from derailing his 2016 presidential campaign. Trump has consistently denied the affair and has maintained his innocence, filing an appeal with a state appellate court to overturn the conviction.
The case represents the only one of Trump’s four criminal indictments to have proceeded to trial and conviction.
In their federal court transfer request, Trump’s lawyers argued that federal officers, including former presidents, have the right to be tried in federal court for charges stemming from conduct performed while in office. They specifically pointed to checks Trump wrote while serving as president as part of the case.
Jeffrey Wall, Trump’s attorney and former acting U.S. Solicitor General, contended during June arguments that prosecutors rushed to trial instead of waiting for the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity decision. He further claimed they improperly presented jurors with evidence that should have been excluded under that ruling, such as testimony from White House staffers about Trump’s reactions to news coverage of the hush money arrangement and tweets he sent as president in 2018.
The Manhattan DA’s office, through appellate chief Steven Wu, countered that Trump’s request came too late, as such transfers must typically be requested within 30 days of arraignment, with exceptions only for “good cause.”
Judge Merchan, who presided over the trial, previously rejected Trump’s immunity-based arguments and sentenced him on January 10 to an unconditional discharge – leaving the conviction intact but imposing no punishment.
The appeals court’s decision sends the case back to Hellerstein for a thorough reconsideration of Trump’s request, potentially opening a new chapter in this high-profile legal battle with significant implications for the scope of presidential immunity.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
9 Comments
This is an interesting development in the ongoing legal battle surrounding Trump’s hush money conviction. I’m curious to see how the lower court will rule on the issue of jurisdiction and presidential immunity this time around.
The appeals court’s decision to order a re-evaluation of the jurisdictional questions suggests they see potential merit in Trump’s arguments, even if they’re not taking a stance themselves.
This case highlights the complex interplay between the powers of the presidency and the role of the judiciary. I’m curious to see how the lower court navigates these delicate constitutional issues in its reconsideration of the jurisdictional matter.
This case highlights the ongoing tension between the rule of law and the unique status of the presidency. I’m curious to hear legal experts’ perspectives on the potential implications, regardless of one’s political leanings.
With so much at stake, I imagine the lower court will face significant pressure to rule in a way that upholds the integrity of the justice system while also respecting the unique authority of the presidency.
While the appeals court’s decision gives Trump another chance to challenge the jurisdiction, it’s important to remember that the ultimate question of his guilt or innocence remains unresolved. The legal process must be allowed to play out fairly.
Regardless of one’s political views, I think we can all agree that the rule of law should be applied equally, even to those in the highest offices.
The question of whether a sitting or former president can be criminally prosecuted for acts while in office remains a complex legal issue. I’ll be following this case closely to see how the courts navigate these tricky constitutional questions.
Given the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on presidential immunity, it will be interesting to see how that factors into the lower court’s reconsideration of the jurisdictional matters.