Judge Rejects Trump Bid to Move New York Hush Money Conviction to Federal Court

A federal judge on Friday rejected President Donald Trump’s latest bid to move his New York hush money conviction into federal court, finding that the request came too late and that evidence Trump claimed was protected by presidential immunity involved personal rather than official conduct.

U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein also found that the federal removal law Trump relied on applies to cases that are still being litigated, while Trump’s state prosecution had already ended in a jury verdict, sentencing and final judgment. The ruling came after the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals directed Hellerstein to take a closer look at Trump’s request and more fully address his immunity arguments.

A Manhattan jury convicted Trump in May 2024 on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. Prosecutors argued that records were falsified to conceal reimbursements to Michael Cohen after Cohen paid $130,000 to adult film actor Stormy Daniels shortly before the 2016 presidential election. Daniels has said she had a sexual encounter with Trump, which he denies. Trump has denied wrongdoing and has argued that the prosecution was politically motivated.

New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan sentenced Trump in January 2025 to an unconditional discharge. The sentence left the conviction in place without jail time, probation or a fine.

Trump sought to move the case through a process called federal officer removal. Federal law allows some current and former federal officials to transfer a state case to federal court when it stems from actions they took as part of their federal duties and they raise a federal legal defense. The law is intended to protect actions taken as part of federal duties from improper state interference.

Removal changes which court system handles an ongoing case. An appeal serves a different purpose by asking a higher court to review a decision that has already been made. Hellerstein found that Trump’s prosecution had moved beyond the stage where removal could be used because the jury had returned its verdict, Trump had been sentenced and judgment had been entered.

Timing provided a separate basis for the decision. Federal law generally requires a criminal removal notice within 30 days after arraignment or before trial, whichever comes first. A judge may allow a late filing for good cause when there is a valid reason for the delay and the person seeking removal acts promptly after that reason arises.

Trump argued that the Supreme Court’s July 2024 presidential immunity ruling created a new basis for moving his case. He first raised the issue in state court and later asked Hellerstein for permission to file another removal notice 64 days after the Supreme Court decision.

Hellerstein found that Trump had made a strategic choice to pursue the immunity argument in state court first. Waiting to see how the state court would address the issue did not establish good cause for the later federal filing, the judge ruled.

Presidential immunity became the other major issue before Hellerstein. The Supreme Court ruled in 2024 that presidents receive protection from criminal prosecution for certain actions taken as part of their official duties. Private conduct falls outside that protection. Courts therefore look at what the president was doing and whether the conduct was connected to the powers and responsibilities of the presidency.

The Supreme Court decision can also restrict prosecutors from using protected official acts as evidence to support criminal charges involving private conduct. Trump argued that his Manhattan trial crossed that line through testimony from former White House aides Hope Hicks and Madeleine Westerhout, testimony from Cohen, and statements Trump posted on Twitter while serving as president.

Hellerstein rejected the argument, finding that the disputed evidence concerned Trump’s personal affairs and the response to reports involving Daniels rather than the exercise of presidential authority.

The judge pointed to Hicks’ conversations with Trump about media coverage involving Daniels and Westerhout’s assistance with personal checks used to reimburse Cohen. Hellerstein found that their White House positions did not turn those activities into presidential acts because the conduct concerned Trump’s personal matters rather than the duties of his office.

Trump’s legal team filed notice Friday that it intends to appeal Hellerstein’s ruling. His separate appeal of the New York conviction remains pending in the state court system.