A federal judge in New York is scheduled to hear new arguments on Wednesday concerning former President Donald Trump’s attempt to nullify his conviction related to hush money payments. This comes after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit mandated the judge to reevaluate his earlier decision to maintain the case within state court jurisdiction instead of transferring it to federal court, where Trump seeks dismissal based on presidential immunity.
In November, the appellate court criticized U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein for not addressing critical questions relevant to determining whether the case should be moved to federal court. The three-judge panel refrained from indicating how the judge should ultimately rule on the matter, emphasizing procedural precision in reconsideration.
Trump, representing the Republican Party, is unlikely to be present at the federal court hearing in New York City. Before the oral arguments day, extensive written briefs were submitted both by Trump's legal team and the Manhattan district attorney's office, which prosecuted the case and advocates for retaining state court jurisdiction.
Judge Hellerstein, appointed by former Democratic President Bill Clinton, had twice declined Trump’s petitions to transfer jurisdiction to federal court. The first denial followed Trump’s indictment in March 2023; the second emerged after Trump’s May 2024 conviction and a Supreme Court directive that shields presidents and former presidents from prosecution related to their official duties.
In his second ruling, triggered by the Supreme Court's precedent, Hellerstein concluded that Trump’s conviction for falsifying business records pertained to his personal affairs and not to official acts immune from prosecution. This judgment rejected the argument that the case involved presidential conduct protected by immunity.
However, the Second Circuit panel found fault with this stance, noting that Hellerstein did not assess whether certain evidence introduced during the state trial connected to official acts protected by immunity or whether such evidentiary protections effectively made the case one involving official conduct. The panel instructed that these considerations are vital to deciding jurisdictional questions.
Specifically, the appellate judges advised Hellerstein to closely analyze claims by Trump’s defense regarding evidence tied to official presidential actions. Should the judge find that the prosecution based its case partly on such evidence, he must then determine if Trump is entitled to argue that these actions were performed within the scope of his duties as president, whether Trump promptly sought a federal court venue, and the feasibility of transferring jurisdiction after conviction and sentencing at the state level.
The conviction itself involves 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to conceal a hush money payment made to adult film actor Stormy Daniels. Daniels’ allegations of an affair posed a significant threat to Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign. The court imposed an unconditional discharge, preserving the conviction but exempting Trump from penalties.
Trump continues to deny the accusations made by Daniels and maintains he did nothing wrong. The former president has asked the New York State appellate court to overturn the conviction, continuing his legal efforts to challenge the charges against him.