In New York, legal proceedings continue as President Donald Trump attempts to overturn a criminal conviction connected to hush money payments, a case that became a focal point during his reelection campaign. On Wednesday, Trump’s legal team presented arguments in front of a federal appeals court in Manhattan, seeking to transition the case from state to federal court. This shift could allow Trump to argue for dismissal based on presidential immunity, a strategy aimed at invalidating the prior verdict.
A three-judge panel listened to the arguments, evaluating whether the unusual legal issues presented justified moving the case. The judges, representing a spectrum of nominations from Democratic Presidents Obama and Biden, expressed openness to both perspectives but also noted the case’s distinctive nature. The appeal follows Trump’s unsuccessful attempts in a lower court, where the move to federal court was twice denied.
Trump’s team, backed by the Justice Department currently led by former defense lawyers, aims to argue that the prosecution failed to adhere to the U.S. Supreme Court’s presidential immunity ruling. This landmark ruling, determined last year, set boundaries on indicting ex-presidents for acts tied to their official capacity while in office. Trump’s legal representation contends that the prosecution proceeded hastily with the trial, disregarding potential implications of the pending Supreme Court decision.
Jeffrey Wall, Trump’s lawyer, stressed that the case’s complexity warrants a federal court’s attention and criticized the lower court for allowing certain evidence, which they claim shouldn’t have been permitted under the Supreme Court guideline. Wall advocated that presentation of specific evidence, like testimonies from former White House staff and Trump’s tweets related to the hush money scenario, was inappropriate.
The district attorney’s office, represented by appellate chief Steven Wu, pushed back, asserting that Trump’s request to move the case to federal court was significantly delayed. Typically, these requests must be made within 30 days post-arraignment, unless extraordinary circumstances provide “good cause” as seen in a D.C. federal ruling. Wu contested Trump’s justification as insufficient to warrant such a shift so late in the process.
At the core of Trump’s conviction are 34 counts of falsifying business records to conceal a payment to Stormy Daniels, an adult film actress who alleged an affair with Trump. He was found guilty in May 2024, marking the only trial out of four criminal cases against him to conclude. Despite the appeals and court battles, Trump maintains his innocence, denying any wrongdoing.
Post-conviction, Trump’s efforts to move the legal proceedings to federal jurisdiction faced hurdles. Initially blocked by U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein, who attributed the conviction to Trump’s personal life rather than presidential duties, Trump’s legal team persisted with appeals following the Supreme Court’s decision.
During the hearing, Wu argued that Trump’s team had the opportunity to raise immunity-based objections earlier, and their delayed actions effectively relinquished their right to request a transfer. Trump’s team, however, argued they were exploring all options with the trial judge before pursuing federal intervention. The case progresses as the appeals court deliberates the merits of shifting to federal court, a decision expected to have significant implications for the former president’s legal strategy.