Listen to the article
A federal judge expressed skepticism Wednesday over former President Donald Trump’s renewed attempt to move his hush money conviction from state to federal court, characterizing the legal strategy as seeking “two bites at the apple.”
During nearly three hours of arguments in Manhattan federal court, U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein repeatedly challenged Trump attorney Jeffrey Wall’s reasoning, suggesting the former president’s legal team had waited too long after the historic verdict to seek federal court intervention.
“You made a choice,” Hellerstein told Wall, “and you sought two bites at the apple.”
The hearing stemmed from a November ruling by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which ordered Judge Hellerstein to reconsider his earlier decision keeping the case in New York state court. The appeals panel determined Hellerstein had failed to consider “important issues relevant” to Trump’s request but expressed no opinion on how he should ultimately rule.
Trump was convicted in May 2024 on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related to concealing a hush money payment to adult film actor Stormy Daniels. The payment was allegedly made to prevent Daniels from publicly discussing claims of an affair with Trump ahead of the 2016 presidential election. Though convicted, Trump received an unconditional discharge, which kept his conviction intact but imposed no punishment.
Trump has consistently denied Daniels’ claims and has separately asked a state appellate court to overturn the conviction.
At the center of Wednesday’s hearing was the timing of Trump’s legal maneuvers following his conviction. Hellerstein took issue with Trump’s lawyers first asking state court Judge Juan Merchan to throw out the verdict on presidential immunity grounds before later attempting to move the case to federal court.
Wall argued that Trump’s legal team faced time constraints after the Supreme Court’s July 1, 2024, ruling on presidential immunity because Trump’s sentencing was scheduled just 10 days later. He suggested approaching the federal court immediately might have been criticized as premature by prosecutors.
Hellerstein was unconvinced, calling the delay a “strategic decision” that potentially cost Trump the right to pursue remedies in federal court. “You could have come right to the federal court. Just by filing a notice of removal, there would be no sentencing,” the judge noted.
Steven Wu, representing the Manhattan district attorney’s office, agreed with the judge’s assessment, arguing that Trump’s legal team “cannot go to state court and when you’re unhappy, then go to federal court.”
The timing issue is particularly significant because requests to move cases from state to federal court normally must occur within 30 days of arraignment, though exceptions can be made when “good cause” is shown.
This marks the third time Judge Hellerstein, a Clinton appointee, has considered Trump’s attempts to move the case. He first denied the request after Trump’s March 2023 indictment and again in his post-verdict ruling, which is now under review.
In his earlier ruling, Hellerstein determined that Trump’s conviction for falsifying business records involved his personal life, not official presidential actions that the Supreme Court has ruled are immune from prosecution.
The appeals court directed Hellerstein to closely examine evidence Trump claims relates to official acts. If he finds prosecutors relied on evidence of official presidential actions, Hellerstein must consider whether Trump can argue those actions were taken as part of his White House duties, whether he “diligently sought” to have the case moved to federal court, and whether the case can even be transferred now that Trump has been convicted and sentenced in state court.
Trump, who did not attend Wednesday’s arguments, continues to maintain his innocence. Judge Hellerstein concluded the hearing by thanking both attorneys for their “very provocative arguments” and said he would issue a ruling at a later date.
The case represents one of several legal challenges facing the former president as he continues to maintain a prominent role in American politics following his defeat in the 2024 election.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
11 Comments
Hush money payments and attempts to cover them up are serious matters, regardless of who is involved. The judge seems intent on keeping this case in the proper jurisdiction and not allowing it to be dragged into federal court.
Absolutely. The integrity of the legal process is paramount, and the judge appears unwilling to let political maneuvering undermine it.
It’s good to see the judge pushing back on the former president’s legal team. Trying to move this case to federal court at this stage seems like a transparent attempt to evade justice. The rule of law must be upheld.
This seems like another attempt by Trump to avoid accountability. The judge appears to be skeptical of the legal strategy, rightly pointing out that the former president’s team had already made their choice. It’ll be interesting to see how this plays out in court.
I agree, the judge seems to be taking a firm stance here. Delaying tactics like this only serve to erode public trust in the justice system.
The former president’s legal team seems to be grasping at straws here. The judge’s comments suggest he sees through the attempt to delay and obfuscate. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
It’s good to see the judge pushing back on the former president’s legal team. Trying to move this case to federal court at this stage seems like a transparent attempt to evade justice. The rule of law must be upheld.
This case highlights the importance of accountability, even for those in positions of power. The judge’s skepticism suggests he is focused on ensuring a fair and impartial legal process, not political considerations.
Agreed. The integrity of the justice system is essential, and the judge appears determined to protect it in this case.
This case is a test of the independence and impartiality of the judiciary. The judge’s skepticism is reassuring, as it indicates he is focused on upholding the rule of law, not political considerations.
Exactly. Maintaining public trust in the justice system is crucial, and the judge appears to be taking that responsibility seriously.