A federal judge has once again denied Donald Trump’s legal attempt to move his New York state criminal hush money case into the federal court system. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein issued a ruling on Friday, concluding that the grounds presented by the former president were “neither new nor legally sufficient.” This decision marks another setback in Trump’s ongoing efforts to overturn his 2024 conviction, where he was found guilty on 34 counts of falsifying business records related to payments made to adult film star Stormy Daniels during the 2016 election cycle.
The legal battle centers on whether the conduct in question—reimbursing his former attorney Michael Cohen for the hush money scheme—constituted official presidential acts. Trump’s defense team has argued that he is protected by presidential immunity and that the case should be moved to federal court to allow for a broader interpretation of federal preemption. However, Judge Hellerstein remained firm in his assessment, stating that the prosecution arose from private conduct that bears no substantive relation to the duties of a federal office. He noted that defining such actions as official would render the concept of a federal office “so broad that it is meaningless.”
This latest ruling follows a period of reconsideration mandated by a federal appellate court last autumn, which instructed the district court to review the case in light of the July 2024 US Supreme Court decision regarding presidential immunity. Despite hearing arguments from both Trump’s legal team and the Manhattan District Attorney’s office in February, Hellerstein maintained his original position. He explicitly rejected the notion that discussions surrounding a cover-up of an affair could fall within the “outer perimeter” of a president’s official responsibilities, dismissing the idea that work performed by presidential assistants on such matters qualifies as official business.
Beyond the merits of the immunity claim, Judge Hellerstein criticized the timing of the defense’s filing. He pointed out that Trump’s legal team waited approximately two months to renew their request in federal court, having first sought to have the conviction dismissed by state court Judge Juan Merchan. Hellerstein characterized this delay as a “quintessential strategic decision,” noting that the defense’s subsequent dissatisfaction with that strategy does not constitute sufficient cause to justify the late filing. During the February hearing, the judge had signaled this outcome, telling the defense they had essentially sought “two bites at the apple.”
A spokesperson for Trump’s legal team stated that the former president intends to file a “powerful appeal,” asserting that the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling and constitutional precedents mandate that the case be removed to federal court and subsequently dismissed. While Trump was sentenced to an unconditional discharge—meaning he faced no immediate penalties and the conviction was largely symbolic—the case remains a significant legal milestone as he became the first US president to be convicted of a felony.
The broader legal process continues on multiple fronts. Trump’s appeal of his conviction is currently moving through state appellate channels, which could eventually lead to the New York Court of Appeals and potentially the US Supreme Court. The defense maintains that prosecutors improperly introduced evidence involving White House staff actions during the trial, arguing these were official acts. Hellerstein, however, dismissed this, reiterating that a president’s assistant can perform tasks on personal, unofficial matters. As the state-level appeals proceed, the federal court’s refusal to intervene keeps the case firmly within the jurisdiction of the New York state system. The report also notes that to consider these facts to be ‘relating to’ a federal office would give the words a definition that is ‘so broad that it is meaningless.’”. The report also notes that the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals kicked the case back to Hellerstein and said the district court must reconsider but didn’t weigh in on whether the SCOTUS decision should tip the scales for Trump, last November. The report also notes that “Trump’s delay in filing for removal constitutes a “quintessential strategic decision,” and the “fact that he later came to view that decision as a poor one is not sufficient, by itself, to establish cause.”. The report also notes that this story has been updated with additional details.