Appeals Court Reopens Trump Hush Money Case Challenge/ Newslooks/ WASHINGTON/ J. Mansour/ Morning Edition/ A federal appeals court has revived Donald Trump’s attempt to move his hush money conviction case to federal court. The decision could open the door to challenging his conviction based on presidential immunity. The case, linked to payments to Stormy Daniels, remains the only one of Trump’s four criminal cases to go to trial.
Trump Hush Money Appeal Quick Looks
- Appeals court sends Trump’s case back for review
- Trump seeks to move hush money case to federal court
- Judges say trial judge didn’t fully consider immunity issues
- Trump convicted in 2024 of falsifying business records
- Case involved hush money to adult film actor Stormy Daniels
- Conviction tied to Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign
- Legal team argues some actions were official presidential duties
- Supreme Court ruling limits prosecution of official acts
- New review could weigh whether evidence involved official duties
- Trump remains convicted but was given an unconditional discharge
Deep Look: Appeals Court Reopens Trump’s Legal Path in Hush Money Conviction
NEW YORK — Donald Trump’s effort to erase his hush money conviction took a major step forward Thursday when a federal appeals court ruled that a lower court failed to properly consider key constitutional issues. The decision means a federal judge must now revisit whether Trump’s case belongs in federal — not state — court, where he could seek protection under presidential immunity.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a unanimous ruling by a three-judge panel, sent the case back to U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein, stating he had not adequately addressed the “important issues” raised by Trump’s legal team. Those include whether certain evidence presented during the trial involved official presidential acts — which, under a 2024 Supreme Court ruling, are protected from prosecution.
“We express no view on how the district court should rule,” the panel wrote, but emphasized that Hellerstein must more thoroughly examine whether the case could involve acts Trump performed in his official capacity as president.
Judge Hellerstein, a Clinton-era appointee, had previously rejected Trump’s request twice — once in 2023 after the indictment, and again in 2024 following Trump’s conviction. He reasoned that the conviction stemmed from Trump’s personal conduct, not his official duties, and therefore didn’t qualify for federal jurisdiction or immunity protections.
But the appellate court took issue with how narrowly Hellerstein applied that reasoning. They highlighted that evidence such as Trump’s tweets during his presidency and testimony from White House aides may have crossed into the realm of official acts.
If the lower court determines that any part of the trial involved protected presidential activity, it could trigger a broader reassessment of the entire case. That includes whether the case should have ever been tried in state court and whether the conviction can legally stand.
The ruling breathes new life into Trump’s legal push to overturn his May 2024 conviction on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. The charges were tied to a $130,000 hush money payment made to adult film actor Stormy Daniels to silence allegations of a sexual encounter ahead of the 2016 election. Trump has consistently denied the affair and maintains his innocence.
The conviction remains the only one of the four criminal cases against Trump to reach trial. While he was sentenced to an “unconditional discharge” — meaning no jail time or fines — the conviction remains on his record and has legal and political implications.
Trump’s legal team, led by former acting U.S. Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall, has argued that aspects of the hush money arrangement, including checks signed during his presidency and official White House communications, were part of his duties while in office. Under the Supreme Court’s July 2024 ruling, presidents and former presidents cannot be prosecuted for official acts, and even evidence of those acts cannot be used to support unrelated charges.
Wall told the appeals court in June that prosecutors “rushed to trial” without waiting for the Supreme Court’s decision and improperly introduced evidence that should have been excluded under the new legal standards.
“Everything about this cries out for federal court,” Wall said, calling the president “a class of one.”
He added that the prosecution relied on testimony from former White House staff about Trump’s response to media reports and tweets issued from his presidential account — actions they argue were part of his official communication strategy.
Steven Wu, representing the Manhattan District Attorney’s office, pushed back during oral arguments, saying Trump waited too long to request a jurisdiction change. Legal protocol generally requires that requests to transfer to federal court be filed within 30 days of arraignment, barring extraordinary circumstances. Hellerstein had found no such “good cause” in Trump’s delayed filing.
But the appeals court was not convinced by that conclusion, stating it “cannot be confident” Hellerstein fully considered the relevant legal standards in rejecting the motion.
At the center of this complex legal fight is the issue of presidential immunity — what actions taken by a sitting president are shielded from prosecution, and whether introducing evidence tied to official duties can taint a state-level criminal trial.
Trump’s team contends they initially chose not to move the case to federal court while pursuing immunity arguments in front of the trial judge, New York State Justice Juan Merchan. That attempt failed, and Trump was convicted and sentenced in January 2025.
Now, with the appeals court’s decision, the legal saga is far from over. If Judge Hellerstein, upon review, finds that official acts were part of the prosecution’s case, Trump could push to vacate the conviction entirely or move proceedings to federal court, where dismissal becomes a stronger possibility under immunity protections.
As Trump continues his 2024 campaign efforts and battles three other criminal cases, the outcome of this revived challenge could have long-lasting consequences — not just for him, but for future interpretations of presidential immunity in American law.
You must Register or Login to post a comment.