A federal judge on Friday rejected President Donald Trump‘s latest attempt to move his New York hush money criminal case into federal court, ruling that his arguments were neither new nor legally sufficient, according to the Washington Post.
Federal Judge Rejects Trump Bid to Move Hush Money Conviction
U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein issued the ruling, marking the third time he has blocked an effort to transfer the case from the New York state court system to federal court. Trump’s legal team had argued that shifting the case to federal court would allow him to invoke broader presidential immunities following a landmark Supreme Court decision. However, Hellerstein concluded that the grounds cited by the defense failed to justify the move.
Presidential Immunity Arguments and the Supreme Court Ruling
The underlying criminal case centers on a $130,000 payment made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels before the 2016 presidential election. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg brought the prosecution, leading a jury to convict Trump in May 2024 on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. Trump has continuously denied the allegations and any wrongdoing regarding the payment to Daniels.
Following the jury’s verdict, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in July 2024 stating that presidents possess immunity from prosecution for official acts and that prosecutors cannot use evidence of official acts in criminal cases involving private conduct. Trump’s lawyers maintained that key evidence presented during the state trial—including testimony from former aides and lawyer Michael Cohen, as well as social media statements—infringed upon his presidential immunity because it involved official White House roles and personnel.
Hellerstein firmly rejected that interpretation in his Friday order. Paying hush money to an adult film star or engaging in a cover-up of an embarrassment are not subsumed in presidential immunity,
Hellerstein wrote, emphasizing that an affair or its cover-up falls outside the outer perimeter of a president’s official responsibilities.
Appellate Review and Ongoing Legal Challenges
The latest federal court decision follows an unusual procedural path. After an earlier post-trial rejection, the 2nd U.S. Court of Appeals directed Trump and his defense team to review how the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity decision could impact the state-level case. A three-judge appellate panel instructed Hellerstein to reexamine whether specific disputed evidence related to acts taken under color of the presidency, while expressing no view on the ultimate outcome.
After conducting that review, Hellerstein concluded that Trump waited too long and failed to show good cause and diligence for the renewed removal attempt, criticizing the strategy as a disfavored second bite at the apple. Following Friday’s decision, Trump’s personal lawyer, Robert Giuffra Jr., promptly appealed the ruling.
Meanwhile, the 34-count felony conviction remains intact on the state level. At his January 2025 sentencing, days before returning to office for his second term, Trump received a sentence of unconditional discharge, meaning he was given no jail time, probation, or financial penalties. Alongside the federal appeals, Trump is separately asking a New York state appeals court to void the conviction entirely.
