Federal Judge Denies Trump's Bid to Move New York Hush-Money Case to Federal Court
U.S. PoliticsWell-covered
|
The Facts
- U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein on Aug. 28 denied Trump's request to move his New York hush-money case to federal court.
- Hellerstein wrote that Trump's grounds for a second removal were "neither new nor legally sufficient" and showed no "good cause and diligence."
- Trump was convicted in May 2024 on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in New York state court.
- The case concerns a $130,000 payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels before the 2016 presidential election.
- Hellerstein wrote that paying hush money or covering up an embarrassment is not covered by presidential immunity.
- Hellerstein also found Trump waited too long, saying he should have sought removal shortly after the May 2024 verdict.
- A panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had ordered Hellerstein to reconsider in light of the Supreme Court's July 2024 presidential immunity ruling.
- The ruling leaves Trump's felony conviction intact while he serves as president.
- Trump's lawyer Robert Giuffra said he would appeal; a legal team spokesperson called the ruling "baseless and lawless."
- Trump is separately challenging the conviction through New York's state appellate process.
Context
What is 'removal,' and why did Trump want the case in federal court?
Under federal law, a defendant can seek to transfer, or 'remove,' a state case to federal district court by filing a notice of removal; if removal is denied, the case returns to state court NTD. Trump's lawyers argued that in federal court he would enjoy broader immunity from prosecution, potentially allowing the conviction to be vacated Washington Post,Aol,CNN International.
How does the Supreme Court's 2024 immunity decision factor in?
The Supreme Court ruled in July 2024 that presidents have broad criminal immunity for official acts NTD,NewsMax. A 2nd Circuit panel directed Hellerstein to look more closely at how that decision affected the New York case NewsMax,Times of India,Hill. Hellerstein concluded the payments, routed through attorney Michael Cohen, were private conduct unrelated to the presidency POLITICO.
What happens next?
Trump's personal lawyer, Robert Giuffra, moved to appeal the ruling USA Today,NY Post. Trump is also challenging the conviction separately in New York's state appellate courts Aol,India Today. Until those challenges succeed, the 34-count conviction stands Newsweek.
Where Left and Right agree, and where they split
- Where Left and Right agree
- Moving the case to federal court would not erase the 34 counts, and the removal bid came too late — Trump should have sought it shortly after the May 2024 verdict.
- Where Left and Right split
- Whether the story is about a private $130,000 payment that presidential immunity was never meant to reach, or about which court gets to decide immunity questions at all.
- Why they won’t converge
- The divide is trust-in-forum, not fact: both sides accept the same timeline, then split over whether a president's immunity claim is too constitutionally weighty to be foreclosed by a procedural finding of untimeliness.
How left and right read it
Immunity is not a retroactive pardon. That is why Hellerstein's reasoning matters: a $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election was private conduct rather than an official act, and the removal bid came far too late after the May 2024 verdict. Let the appeal travel wherever it must, but the 34-count conviction should stand on its own record, not dissolve into the office won afterward.
“An appeal of Mr. Trump's conviction, which made him the first felon president, would send the case back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.” — The New York Times
A presidential immunity question belongs in federal court. The Second Circuit evidently thought so, ordering reconsideration after the Supreme Court's July 2024 immunity ruling, yet the renewed request failed partly on diligence — Trump should have sought removal shortly after the May 2024 verdict. Since a transfer would not erase the 34 counts anyway, what is the cost of letting a federal judge weigh whether immunity-protected evidence was used?
“A successful transfer would not unwind Trump's conviction, but it could allow a federal judge to consider his argument that prosecutors in the office of an elected Democrat used evidence protected by presidential immunity.” — Washington Examiner
The receipts — all 75 sources
Wire services (9)
Independent coverage (50)
Facts first. Then every angle.
The day’s biggest stories in one short brief — the facts everyone agrees on, then the competing values behind the headlines. Free in your inbox.