Trump to Get New Review of Immunity Push in NY Criminal Case (2)

President Donald Trump could get a fresh review of his so-called hush money case in New York after an appeals court ruling, creating a new opportunity for the verdict to be tossed out.

The 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan on Thursday said that a federal judge who denied Trump’s request to review the verdict should have considered a Supreme Court decision handed down after his conviction that gave presidents broad immunity from criminal charges.

The appeals court concluded that US District Judge Alvin Hellerstein should have more closely reviewed whether the July 2024 Supreme Court ruling impacted some evidence used at the trial in state court in New York.

A jury of 12 New Yorkers in May 2024 found Trump guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records to conceal a hush-money payment to a porn star on the eve of the 2016 election, making him the only person convicted of a felony to serve as president. Trump previously appealed the verdict directly in New York state court.

Trump also argues that the case brought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, a Democrat, was politically motivated.

“The Supreme Court’s historic decision on immunity, the federal and New York State constitutions, and other established legal precedent mandate that the Witch Hunt perpetrated by the Manhattan DA be immediately overturned and dismissed,” a spokesman for Trump’s legal team said in a statement.

Thursday’s appeals court ruling breathes new life into Trump’s challenge to the verdict in federal court. Hellerstein had ruled twice — before and after the Supreme Court ruling — that Trump’s case could not be transferred from state to federal court, saying it didn’t meet the standard for a so-called removal. The judge also held that immunity issues didn’t apply because the hush money payments were not related to Trump’s official duties.

“Hush money paid to an adult film star is not related to a President’s official acts,” Hellerstein said during his first review. “It does not reflect in any way the color of the President’s official duties.”

A three-judge panel of the appeals court said in its Thursday ruling that the second bid to get the criminal case sent to federal court should get another look. Hellerstein in September 2024 rejected Trump’s second bid to move the case to federal court, saying Trump “failed to show good cause” for the request.

‘No View’

But the appeals court judges specifically said they expressed “no view” on how Hellerstein should resolve Trump’s motion, writing, “we simply direct the district court to consider the motion anew in light of our opinion.”

The panel said “there remains a question” whether a federal officer defendant can ever remove a state criminal prosecution to federal court after he has been tried and convicted,” adding Hellerstein should review the question again, saying, “there may be viable arguments from either side.”

Trump’s lawyers argued that the New York jury should never have heard about some events that took place in 2017, during Trump’s first term in the White House when he wrote checks and had conversations with aides related to the payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels.

Danielle Filson, a spokeswoman for Bragg, declined to comment.

Whlie Trump’s criminal conviction is also being reviewed by a state appeals court, his legal team has prioritized the federal appeals as the quickest route to get the case in front of the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court ruled presidents enjoy sweeping immunity for acts that include their core duties. They held that any prosecution relating to an official act can’t intrude on the authority of the executive branch, and prosecutors can’t use official acts as evidence.

Hellerstein and the state judge at Trump’s trial, Juan Merchan, both said the case centered on private actions. Merchan said there was “overwhelming evidence of guilt” against Trump and also rejected arguments that the Supreme Court decision took the case out of his hands.

(Updates with comment from Trump’s legal team.)

To contact the reporters on this story:
Bob Van Voris in federal court in Manhattan at rvanvoris@bloomberg.net;
Patricia Hurtado in Federal Court in Manhattan at pathurtado@bloomberg.net;
Erik Larson in New York at elarson4@bloomberg.net

To contact the editors responsible for this story:
Ben Bain at bbain2@bloomberg.net

Anthony Aarons

© 2025 Bloomberg L.P. All rights reserved. Used with permission.