President Trump’s legal team is attempting to have his hush money conviction overturned by transferring the case to federal court, citing the Supreme Court’s landmark decision on presidential immunity that could fundamentally reshape what evidence should have been admissible in his trial.
Key Takeaways
- President Trump is seeking to move his state-level hush money conviction to federal court based on presidential immunity grounds that could invalidate the entire case.
- Trump’s legal team argues the Supreme Court’s recent decision on presidential immunity provides “good cause” for post-trial removal to federal court, with DOJ support.
- Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg opposes the move, claiming the appeal is procedurally defective and moot due to Trump’s unconditional discharge.
- The case involves 34 counts of business fraud related to payments made to Stormy Daniels that Trump’s team argues were part of his official presidential duties.
- A successful appeal could not only overturn Trump’s conviction but establish critical precedents on presidential immunity and federal jurisdiction.
Presidential Immunity at Center of Appeal
President Trump’s attorneys presented oral arguments on June 11, 2025, before a three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, seeking to transfer his New York state conviction to federal court. The legal strategy centers on the Supreme Court’s recent decision expanding presidential immunity, which was issued after Trump’s conviction. His legal team contends this ruling constitutes “good cause” for removing the case to federal jurisdiction, potentially invalidating the entire prosecution on constitutional grounds.
The Supreme Court’s guidance on presidential immunity forms the cornerstone of Trump’s appeal. His attorneys argue that evidence related to his official duties as president should have been excluded from trial, rendering the conviction fundamentally flawed. This approach represents a strategic pivot from direct appeals within the state system to challenging the very jurisdiction of New York courts to prosecute a president for actions potentially connected to his constitutional role.
JUST PUBLISHED: Trump Appeals Bogus 'Hush Money' Conviction. PULSE POINTS:
❓What Happened: President Donald J. Trump’s attorneys are appealing his conviction in a so-called hush money case in New York, seeking to move it to federal court following last year's U.S. Supreme Court…— The National Pulse (@TheNatPulse) June 11, 2025
Legal Battle Lines Drawn
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office has mounted a vigorous opposition to the jurisdictional transfer. Prosecutors maintain that the case cannot legally be moved to federal court after sentencing has already occurred, and further argue that the appeal is procedurally defective. The timing of Trump’s removal request – coming after his conviction rather than before or during trial – forms a central part of the prosecution’s argument that the case should remain in state court.
“It is not to divert a state criminal proceeding into a federal court for direct appellate review. That offends fundamental principles of respect for state sovereignty over the criminal process,” said Steven Wu, Manhattan District Attorney’s Office.
The Department of Justice has taken the unusual step of supporting President Trump’s appeal, highlighting the significant constitutional questions at stake. The case involves 34 counts of business fraud related to payments made to Stormy Daniels, which Trump’s legal team argues were inextricably tied to his responsibilities as president. Despite receiving an unconditional discharge with no jail time, probation, or fines, Trump remains technically classified as a convicted felon under state law – a status his legal team seeks to erase.
Constitutional Implications and Future Impact
Trump’s lead attorney delivered a compelling argument that the fundamental principles of federalism demand a federal forum for a president facing criminal charges related to his official duties. The potential precedent set by this case extends far beyond Trump’s personal legal situation, potentially reshaping the landscape of presidential immunity and the relationship between state and federal jurisdiction in cases involving high-ranking federal officials.
“The federal officer is entitled to a federal forum, not to have those arguments heard in state court. And if that’s true for a normal federal officer in a normal criminal prosecution, it certainly ought to be true for the president of the United States and for what we can all recognize is an anomalous, one-of-its kind prosecution,” said Jeff Wall, Trump’s Attorney.
Legal experts note that even if the case is transferred to federal court, it would technically remain a state conviction, potentially complicating questions about presidential pardon power. Trump is simultaneously pursuing a direct appeal of the conviction itself, with arguments due by late July. The three-judge panel, consisting of appointees from previous Democratic administrations, is expected to render a decision that could significantly impact not just Trump’s legal status but the constitutional understanding of presidential powers and immunities for generations to come.
