A federal judge in New York signaled skepticism toward President Donald Trump’s latest attempt to erase his New York hush money conviction, during a court proceeding Wednesday, according to the Associated Press (AP)
Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein questioned the timing and strategy of Trump’s legal team during a hearing ordered by an appeals court to revisit whether the case belongs in federal court. The judge said he would rule later.
The judge, directed by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider an earlier decision keeping the case in state court, pressed Trump attorney Jeffrey Wall on why the defense had waited to seek federal relief, suggesting the team sought “two bites at the apple.”
The exchange pointed to a potential defeat for Trump’s removal bid while broader questions over how the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity ruling applies to trial evidence remained before the court.
It also came as Trump continued to argue that presidential immunity should shield aspects of the case.
Why It Matters
The hearing tested whether Trump’s hush money case conviction—already affirmed by a jury—could be undone or moved to federal court based on presidential immunity arguments tied to official acts, a question with implications for the limits of criminal liability for presidents and the admissibility of evidence from their time in office.
The Supreme Court ruled in July 2024 that ex-presidents cannot be prosecuted for official acts and restricted use of such acts as evidence in cases involving unofficial conduct, AP reported.
Trump’s New York case is the only one of his four indictments to reach trial and verdict, and it resulted in 34 felony convictions for falsifying business records tied to a $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels, which prosecutors said was intended to influence the 2016 election by suppressing her allegation of a sexual encounter. Trump has denied wrongdoing and has also denied the alleged encounter.
What To Know
At the Manhattan federal court hearing Wednesday, Hellerstein challenged the defense for first litigating immunity in state court after the Supreme Court’s July 1, 2024, ruling, then seeking federal intervention weeks later, saying the approach suggested an attempt to secure “two bites at the apple.”
He suggested the effort was moot due to the time elapsed since the verdict and thanked counsel for “very provocative arguments” before taking the matter under advisement, AP reported.
In November, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals instructed Hellerstein to consider whether evidence admitted at the state trial related to official acts and, if so, whether that changed the legal calculus for removal to federal court. The panel did not signal how he should rule.
Hellerstein previously rejected Trump’s request to move the case to federal court in September 2025 and had earlier denied removal after the March 2023 indictment, concluding the conduct at issue involved personal, not official, acts.
A separate federal judge also declined to intervene in 2024 when Trump asked for federal control during post-trial motions, according to the AP.
A New York jury convicted Trump in May 2024 on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records, and Judge Juan M. Merchan later imposed an unconditional discharge—leaving the conviction intact while imposing no punishment. Trump planned an appeal, the report said.
What People Are Saying
Hellerstein, in federal court Wednesday, per AP: “You didn’t have to do that. You could have come right to the federal court … You made a choice, and you sought two bites at the apple.”
Steven Cheung, Trump communications director, in a statement Monday, responding to a state court ruling citing the Supreme Court’s immunity decision, per AP: “This lawless case should have never been brought, and the Constitution demands that it be immediately dismissed.”
What Happens Next
Hellerstein said he would issue a ruling after reviewing arguments on whether any evidence tied to official acts necessitates federal removal or other relief. Separately, Trump’s state appeal of the conviction remained pending.
Any decision by Hellerstein could be subject to further appeals.
Read the full article here
