Share and Follow
NEW YORK (AP) — On Wednesday, a federal judge will consider arguments concerning President Donald Trump’s attempt to overturn his hush money conviction, following an appeals court’s directive for a reevaluation.
In November, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals instructed U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein to reassess his prior decision to maintain the case within state court jurisdiction rather than shifting it to federal court. Trump aims to leverage presidential immunity to potentially dismiss the case in the federal setting.
The appellate panel of three judges highlighted that Judge Hellerstein neglected to address “important issues relevant” to Trump’s request for the case transfer to federal court. However, the panel refrained from offering any opinion on the outcome they believe he should reach.
Trump, from the Republican Party, is not anticipated to appear at the federal court session in New York City on Wednesday. This follows extensive written arguments submitted by both Trump’s legal team and the Manhattan district attorney’s office, which prosecuted the case and seeks to keep it in state court.
This marks the third time Judge Hellerstein, who was appointed by Democratic President Bill Clinton, will have to consider Trump’s appeals to transfer the case.
The first was after Trump’s March 2023 indictment; the second followed Trump’s May 2024 conviction and a subsequent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that presidents and former presidents cannot be prosecuted for official acts.
In the later ruling, at issue in the 2nd Circuit decision, Hellerstein said Trump’s lawyers had failed to meet the high burden of proof for changing jurisdiction and that Trump’s conviction for falsifying business records involved his personal life, not official actions that the Supreme Court ruled are immune from prosecution.
The 2nd Circuit panel said Hellerstein’s ruling, which echoed his previous denial, “did not consider whether certain evidence admitted during the state court trial relates to immunized official acts or, if so, whether evidentiary immunity transformed” the hush money case into one that relates to official acts.
The three judges said Hellerstein should closely review evidence that Trump claims relate to official acts.
If Hellerstein finds the prosecution relied on evidence of official acts, the judges said, he should weigh whether Trump can argue those actions were taken as part of his White House duties, whether Trump “diligently sought” to have the case moved to federal court and whether the case can even be moved to federal court now that Trump has been convicted and sentenced in state court.
Trump was convicted in May 2024 of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to conceal a hush money payment to adult film actor Stormy Daniels, whose allegations of an affair with Trump threatened to upend his 2016 presidential campaign. He was sentenced to an unconditional discharge, leaving his conviction intact but sparing him any punishment.
Trump denies Daniels’ claim and said he did nothing wrong. He has asked a state appellate court to overturn the conviction.