Trump Appeals Criminal Conviction in Hush Money Case/ Newslooks/ WASHINGTON/ J. Mansour/ Morning Edition/ Donald Trump has formally appealed his 2024 criminal conviction in the New York hush money case, arguing the verdict should be overturned. His legal team claims the case violated presidential immunity and was tainted by judicial bias. Trump remains a convicted felon despite facing no sentence and winning reelection.
Trump Hush Money Conviction Appeal Quick Looks
- Trump filed a 96-page appeal to overturn his 34-count business fraud conviction.
- The appeal argues the conviction violated presidential immunity protections.
- Trump’s legal team alleges judicial bias due to donations and family ties.
- Justice Merchan previously rejected Trump’s recusal requests during the trial.
- The case involved a hush money payment to Stormy Daniels.
- Trump seeks to move the state case to federal court.
- He was reelected president in November 2024, post-conviction.
- Trump received no sentence in January but remains legally a felon.
- Lawyers cite Supreme Court’s immunity ruling issued after the verdict.
- Appeal could eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court.
Deep Look
Donald Trump Appeals Criminal Conviction in Manhattan Hush Money Case
NEW YORK — President Donald Trump has filed a formal appeal seeking to overturn his criminal conviction in the Manhattan hush money case that made him a convicted felon just months before his successful bid to retake the presidency.
In a 96-page appellate filing, Trump’s attorneys argue that the verdict — delivered in May 2024 by a New York jury — was legally flawed and should be vacated. The case, centered on Trump’s efforts to conceal a hush money payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels, resulted in 34 felony counts of business fraud.
Trump’s appeal centers on two primary claims: that the case violated presidential immunity and that the presiding judge, Juan Merchan, should have recused himself due to potential bias.
Presidential Immunity at the Heart of the Argument
Trump’s legal team contends that the case should have been dismissed outright in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity, which was issued several weeks after the jury returned its guilty verdict.
The attorneys argue that prosecutors improperly relied on evidence tied to Trump’s official duties as president, such as testimony regarding conversations with former White House Communications Director Hope Hicks and posts made on social media during his presidency.
“This case should never have seen the inside of a courtroom,” the defense wrote. “Let alone resulted in a conviction.”
The trial court, however, had previously determined that the evidence pertained not to Trump’s official presidential acts, but to private conduct related to a cover-up effort — specifically, an attempt to conceal a payment to Daniels to silence her about an alleged affair before the 2016 election.
Alleged Judicial Bias and Recusal Push
In addition to challenging the legal basis of the conviction, Trump’s appeal revives accusations that Justice Juan Merchan’s impartiality was compromised.
Trump’s attorneys point to small-dollar political donations Merchan made in 2020 to Democratic-aligned causes and campaigns, and to his daughter’s employment with a digital marketing firm that has worked with Democratic officials. They argue that both factors cast doubt on the judge’s neutrality.
These issues were raised by the defense team prior to and during the 2024 trial. In response, Merchan disclosed that he had consulted with the New York State Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics, which concluded that no ethical violation or conflict existed.
“The outcome of the case could have no effect on the judge’s relative, the relative’s business, or any of their interests,” the committee reportedly stated.
Legal Strategy Expands Beyond State Appeal
While the New York appeals court will now weigh the validity of Trump’s conviction, his legal team is simultaneously pursuing other avenues.
Trump has petitioned a federal appeals court to assume jurisdiction over the case, arguing that it involves matters of federal law and presidential immunity. If successful, that strategy could open a path for the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene and potentially nullify the conviction.
Such a move would mirror legal arguments used in earlier presidential immunity cases and counterterrorism proceedings, citing executive privilege and constitutional protections for sitting and former presidents.
Conviction With Limited Consequences — For Now
Despite the felony conviction, Trump faced no prison time or criminal penalties. He was sentenced in January 2025, shortly after winning reelection in the 2024 presidential contest, but the judge imposed no punishment, a move widely interpreted as symbolic due to his political office.
Still, the felony conviction stands, tarnishing Trump’s record unless overturned by an appellate court. That status could carry long-term implications, including for future legal proceedings, political optics, and historical legacy.
Trump, for his part, has remained defiant, framing the case as a politically motivated attack by Democratic prosecutors and judges aligned against his presidential campaign.
What’s Next
The New York appeals court will now review the arguments laid out by Trump’s six-member legal team from Sullivan & Cromwell, one of the most prominent white-collar defense firms in the country. The timeline for a decision is unclear, but the case could stretch into 2026 or beyond, depending on whether it moves to the federal system or advances to the U.S. Supreme Court.
As Trump campaigns under the weight of a conviction he insists is unjust, the legal battle over his felony status is poised to become yet another defining conflict of his political and post-presidential legacy.
You must Register or Login to post a comment.