A federal appeals court has ordered a lower court to reconsider its decision denying President Donald Trump’s effort to move his New York hush-money conviction to federal court.
The ruling reopened a key legal avenue as Trump seeks to erase the state conviction.
On Thursday, a three-judge panel on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the federal judge who previously rejected Trump’s request failed to weigh “important issues relevant” to whether the case should fall under federal jurisdiction, where Trump could argue that presidential immunity requires it to be thrown out.
Judges Susan L. Carney, Raymond J. Lohier Jr., and Myrna Pérez issued the ruling after hearing arguments in June.
Trump’s attorneys pointed to the Supreme Court’s landmark immunity ruling earlier this year.
“President Trump continues to win in his fight against Radical Democrat Lawfare,” a spokesperson for Trump’s legal team said.
“The Supreme Court’s historic decision on Immunity, the Federal and New York State Constitutions, and other established legal precedent mandate that the Witch Hunt perpetrated by the Manhattan DA be immediately overturned and dismissed.”
Lower Court Had Twice Blocked Trump’s Request
U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein, a Clinton appointee, previously denied Trump’s removal request twice, first after Trump’s March 2023 indictment and again after his May 2024 conviction.
Since then, the Supreme Court ruled that presidents and former presidents are immune from prosecution for official acts taken while in office.
Trump pleaded not guilty to all 34 counts of first-degree falsification of business records but was convicted after a six-week trial in state court.
Hellerstein concluded that Trump’s conduct involved personal matters, not actions connected to his presidential duties, and ruled that Trump’s legal team failed to meet the standard required to change jurisdiction.
Appeals Court Says Immunity Issues Were Overlooked
The appeals court panel found that Hellerstein did not adequately address whether evidence introduced at Trump’s state trial “relates to immunized official acts or, if so, whether evidentiary immunity transformed” the case.
That question could prove key under the Supreme Court’s immunity framework.
Trump’s lawyers maintain that former presidents have the right to remove cases to federal court when the charges relate to events connected to their time in office.
Steven Wu, the appellate chief for the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, argued that Trump’s removal request was filed too late.
Under federal law, such requests are generally required within 30 days of arraignment, unless a defendant shows “good cause.” Hellerstein found Trump did not meet that standard.
Trump Also Challenges the Trial Judge’s Impartiality
Separately, in a 111-page appeal filed in October in New York’s Appellate Division, Trump’s legal team argued that Democrat-aligned Judge Juan Merchan, who presided over the trial, should have recused himself.
They cited his prior political donations, including contributions to then-President Joe Biden and a group called “Stop Republicans PAC.”
They also questioned the work of Merchan’s daughter, who serves as president and part-owner of a political consulting firm that received payments from the Kamala Harris campaign and other Democrat candidates, such as anti-Trump Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA).
What Happens Next
The case now returns to the district court, which must re-evaluate Trump’s removal request under the appeals court’s guidance.
It remains unclear whether the new review will alter the status of Trump’s conviction or open the door to renewed immunity arguments in federal court.
Our comment section is restricted to members of the Slay News community only.
To join, create a free account HERE.
If you are already a member, log in HERE.