Federal Judge Dismisses Trump’s Effort to Overturn Hush Money Conviction
A federal judge in New York has dismissed former President Donald Trump’s latest attempt to overturn his conviction related to a hush money payment, denying his request to transfer the case to federal court. Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein stated that Trump’s arguments lacked new or legally sufficient grounds, particularly disputing claims that presidential immunity covered actions related to the $130,000 payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels.
In his ruling, Hellerstein countered the argument that the payment and subsequent cover-up fell under presidential duties, emphasizing, “They do not; paying hush money to an adult film star or engaging in a cover-up of an embarrassment are not subsumed in presidential immunity.” This decision marks the third rejection of attempts to shift the case from state to federal jurisdiction.
The legal team for Trump announced plans to appeal the decision, labeling it “baseless and lawless.” They argued that the conviction should be overturned based on constitutional grounds and precedents set by the Supreme Court and other legal frameworks. “President Trump will be filing a powerful appeal, and will continue defeating Democrat weaponization at every turn,” a spokesperson for the legal team stated.
Background on Trump’s Conviction
Trump was found guilty in May 2024 of 34 felony counts for falsifying business records to hide the hush money payment to Daniels. The payment was made to suppress her allegations of a past affair, which threatened to disrupt Trump’s 2016 campaign. Although Trump received an unconditional discharge, leaving his conviction intact, he was not subjected to further penalties. He continues to challenge the conviction through the state court appellate process.
Initially, Hellerstein had denied Trump’s requests to move the case twice before, following Trump’s indictment in March 2023 and after his trial. The Supreme Court’s decision in July 2024, which states that former presidents cannot be prosecuted for official acts, was also cited by Trump’s team in their arguments.
Legal Strategy and Court Rulings
In November, the 2nd Circuit Court directed Hellerstein to reconsider his previous decision, stating that he had not addressed significant issues related to Trump’s request. The appellate panel instructed Hellerstein to evaluate the relevance of the evidence connected to Trump’s official duties and whether Trump had made efforts to transfer the case to federal court promptly.
Hellerstein commented on the Trump legal team’s strategic decisions, noting their choice to approach the state court first instead of immediately seeking federal intervention post-Supreme Court ruling. This move, according to Hellerstein, affected Trump’s opportunity to pursue federal remedies. In his written judgment, Hellerstein noted that Trump’s request resembled a “second bite at the apple,” which legal principles discourage.
Hellerstein concluded that “there is no way that discussions regarding hush money payments to cover up the President’s relations with Stormy Daniels could be an official act.” He emphasized that such actions fall outside the scope of presidential responsibilities.
State prosecutors did not immediately comment on the recent ruling.
