In a decisive move, a Manhattan federal judge rejected the former president’s bid to shift his already‑decided hush‑money case to a U.S. court, keeping the criminal conviction in state hands.
Judge blocks transfer to federal jurisdiction
U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein issued the ruling on Friday after a three‑judge panel from the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals instructed him to reassess how the Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity applied to the New York matter.
The panel asked whether evidence tied to official acts should be excluded.
Hellerstein concluded the case centered on the ex‑president’s personal conduct, not actions taken while in office. “Paying hush money to an adult film star or engaging in a cover‑up of an embarrassment are not subsumed in presidential immunity,” he wrote.
The conviction, handed down in May 2024, involved 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. Jurors found the former commander‑in‑chief guilty of hiding a $130,000 payment to adult‑film actress Stormy Daniels, a payment that could have altered the 2016 election.
Related: Dela Rosa obstruction case refiled by CIDG, DOJ silent on Padilla
Trump’s attorneys filed a notice of appeal on the same day, vowing a “powerful” challenge. “President Trump will be filing a powerful appeal, and will continue defeating Democrat weaponization at every turn,” a spokesperson said.
Legal backdrop and immunity arguments
The Supreme Court’s July 2024 decision, Trump v. United States, said presidents are immune from prosecution for official acts, and that prosecutors may not use evidence of those acts even in cases involving private behavior.
Trump argued that jurors heard testimony from former White House communications director Hope Hicks, tying the hush‑money evidence to his presidential tenure.
Judge Juan Merchan, who presided over the original trial, sentenced the former president on January 10, 2025 to an unconditional discharge—no jail time, no fine—citing the need to avoid disruption to his second White House term, which began on January 20, 2025.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg brought the case, and the ex‑president has also asked a New York state appeals court to overturn the verdict, claiming the prosecution was politically motivated.
Related: Slip and Fall Accidents – Where and Why You Were There Make a Difference
While the appeal process continues, the practical effect of Hellerstein’s decision is that the conviction stays on the record, and any further challenges must proceed through state channels.
The conviction stays in state court.
In the meantime, the ex‑president faces three additional criminal investigations, though only the Manhattan case has proceeded to trial. He has pleaded not guilty in each, maintaining his denial of wrongdoing.
The ruling highlights the judiciary’s reluctance to expand immunity beyond official duties, a stance that could shape how similar defenses are evaluated in upcoming proceedings.
