A federal appeals court on Thursday breathed new life into President Trump’s bid to expunge his hush money conviction, ordering a lower court to keep the case in state court instead of moving it to federal court.
A three-judge panel of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals moved the New York case to federal court and ruled that Trump erred in failing to consider “important issues related to” his request that he could seek to dismiss the suit based on presidential immunity.
But the appeals court judges said they had “expressed no view” on what sentence Hellerstein should receive.
Hellerstein, who was appointed by Democratic President Bill Clinton, twice rejected Trump’s requests to move the case. The first time was after Trump’s March 2023 indictment. The second followed Trump’s conviction in May 2024 and the U.S. Supreme Court’s subsequent ruling that presidents and former presidents cannot be prosecuted for acts of official conduct.
In a subsequent decision at issue in Thursday’s ruling, Hellerstein said Trump’s lawyers had failed to meet the heavy burden of proof that comes with changing jurisdiction and said Trump’s conviction for falsifying business records was about Trump’s personal life, not an official act that the Supreme Court had deemed immune from prosecution.
Hellerstein’s decision echoes previous denials and “does not consider whether the particular evidence admitted in state court relates to the exempt official act, or, if so, whether the evidentiary immunity transformed the hush money case into a case involving official act,” the appeals court panel said.
The three justices said Hellerstein should closely consider evidence that Trump’s claims were related to official conduct.
The justices said that if Hellerstein found that prosecutors relied on evidence of official acts, they should consider whether Trump could argue those acts were committed as part of his White House duties, whether Trump had “earnestly sought” to have the case transferred to federal court, and whether the case could even be moved to federal court now that Trump has been convicted and sentenced in state court.
The verdict was issued after oral arguments in June.
Judges Susan L. Carney, Raymond J. Lohier Jr., and Myrna Perez issued the ruling after an oral argument hearing in June. He spent more than an hour grilling Mr. Trump’s lawyers and the appellate director for Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office, which prosecuted the case and wants it to remain in state court.
Mr. Carney and Mr. Lohier were appointed to the court by Democratic President Barack Obama. Perez was nominated by Democratic President Joe Biden.
“President Trump continues to win the fight against radical Democratic legislation,” a spokesperson for President Trump’s legal team said in a statement. “The Supreme Court’s historic decision on immunity, the federal and New York state constitutions, and other well-established precedents require that the Manhattan DA’s witch hunt be immediately reversed and dismissed.”
Bragg’s office declined to comment.
Trump was convicted in May 2024 of 34 felonies for falsifying business records to conceal hush money payments to adult film actor Stormy Daniels, but allegations of an affair with him threatened to upend his 2016 presidential campaign. President Trump has denied her claims, said he did nothing wrong and asked a state appeals court to overturn the conviction.
Of the four Republican criminal cases, this was the only one that went to trial.
Trump campaign cites Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity
Trump’s lawyers, seeking to move the hush-money lawsuit to federal court, argued that federal employees, including former presidents, have the right to be tried in federal court on charges stemming from “conduct committed while in office.” Part of the criminal case involved checks written by Trump while he was president.
Trump’s lawyer, Jeffrey Wall, argued that prosecutors rushed the case without waiting for the Supreme Court’s decision to immunize the president. He also said he erred in showing the jury evidence that should not have been allowed under the ruling, including reports about hush-money deals and a former White House staffer who described Trump’s reactions to tweets from his 2018 presidency.
“The district attorney has the keys in his hand,” Wall told the three-judge panel in June. “He doesn’t need to provide this evidence.”
In addition to curbing prosecutions of former presidents for official actions, the Supreme Court’s July 2024 ruling limited prosecutors from pointing to official actions as evidence that the president’s unofficial actions were illegal.
Wall, a former acting U.S. attorney general, called the president “first class” and told the judges, “This whole thing is in federal court.”
Stephen Wu, the district attorney’s office’s appellate director, countered that Trump moved too late to move the case to federal court. Generally, such charges must be filed within 30 days of arraignment. Exceptions may be made if “just cause” is shown.
Hellerstein concluded that Trump did not show “good cause” to seek federal court action at this late stage. But on Thursday, a three-judge panel said it was “not convinced” that the judges had “properly considered the issues” relevant to making that decision.
Wall cited delays in oral arguments and said Trump’s team did not immediately move the case to federal court because the defense was trying to resolve the issue by presenting an immunity argument to trial judge Juan Melchan.
Marchand rejected Trump’s request to throw out his conviction on the grounds of immunity, and on January 10, he sentenced him to unconditional release, leaving his conviction intact but exempting him from punishment.
Sisak writes for The Associated Press.
