Executive Summary
- A federal appeals court has revived President Trump’s attempt to challenge his hush money conviction, sending the case back to a lower court to reconsider in light of the Supreme Court’s decision on presidential immunity.
- The appeals court instructed the district court to specifically review evidence related to Trump’s time in the White House, determine if he has a federal defense, and assess the timeliness of his request.
- Trump’s argument hinges on the Supreme Court’s immunity decision, claiming prosecutors improperly used evidence of official acts in a case concerning private conduct, while the Manhattan DA argues it is too late for federal intervention and the evidence is not covered by immunity.
The Story So Far
- President Donald Trump’s ongoing legal challenges stem from his conviction on 34 counts of falsifying business records in a hush money case, which he argues should be re-examined under the Supreme Court’s recent landmark decision granting presidential immunity for official acts. This legal maneuver aims to shift his case from state to federal court, leveraging a law that allows federal officials to move state prosecutions into federal jurisdiction if the alleged conduct occurred “under color” of a U.S. office, thereby challenging the state’s authority to prosecute these actions.
Why This Matters
- The federal appeals court’s decision to revisit President Donald Trump’s challenge to his hush money conviction in light of the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling significantly prolongs the legal battle, offering Donald Trump another opportunity to argue for the case’s transfer to federal jurisdiction. This move could ultimately impact the conviction’s legal standing by further defining the scope of presidential immunity, particularly the distinction between official acts and private conduct in criminal prosecutions.
Who Thinks What?
- President Trump’s legal team argues that the Supreme Court’s immunity decision mandates the overturning and dismissal of the Manhattan District Attorney’s case, asserting that prosecutors improperly included testimony related to official acts, and the case should be heard in federal court.
- Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office contends that it is too late for federal courts to intervene as Trump has already been convicted and sentenced, and that the evidence presented does not fall under the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling because it pertains to Trump’s private capacity.
- The 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the district court did not sufficiently address “significant issues” when Donald Trump sought to move his hush money case to federal jurisdiction, instructing the lower court to reconsider his arguments in light of the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity decision.
A federal appeals court in New York has revived President Donald Trump’s attempt to challenge his hush money conviction, instructing a lower court to reconsider his arguments in light of the Supreme Court’s landmark decision on presidential immunity. The ruling on Thursday sends the case back to a district court judge to address specific questions raised by the Supreme Court’s decision, offering Trump another opportunity to move the state case into federal jurisdiction.
Appeals Court Decision
A three-judge panel of the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that District Court Judge Alvin Hellerstein, who had twice previously denied Trump’s efforts, did not sufficiently address “significant issues” when Trump sought removal a second time. The panel, all appointed by Democratic presidents, provided guidance for the district court to review evidence related to Trump’s time in the White House, determine if Trump has a federal defense, and assess the timeliness of his request.
The decision allows Trump another chance to argue for federal court review but does not grant his ultimate request to bypass the district judge and have the appeal heard directly by the federal appeals court. Trump is simultaneously appealing his conviction on 34 counts of falsifying business records in New York State court.
Immunity Arguments and Context
Trump’s argument hinges on the Supreme Court’s immunity decision last year, which granted him immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts and barred prosecutors from entering evidence involving such acts, even in cases concerning private conduct. Trump contends that prosecutors crossed this line by including testimony from former White House Communications Director Hope Hicks and former executive assistant Madeleine Westerhout in his hush money case, which is tied to his personal actions.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has countered that it is too late for federal courts to intervene, given that Trump has already been convicted and sentenced. Bragg’s office has also argued that the evidence in question does not fall under the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling, asserting that Hicks, while a White House official, testified about actions Trump took in a private capacity.
Background of the Case
Federal officials facing state prosecution can often move their cases to federal court under a law designed to prevent states from prosecuting them for conduct performed “under color” of a U.S. office or agency. Judge Hellerstein had previously denied Trump’s requests to move the case, ruling that the reimbursement of the hush money payment constituted “private unofficial acts.” He maintained this view even after the Supreme Court’s immunity opinion, stating that “nothing” in the decision altered his perspective that “private schemes with private actors, unconnected to any statutory or constitutional authority or function of the executive, are considered unofficial acts.”
Trump’s conviction stems from allegations that he falsified business records to conceal a payment made to his former lawyer, Michael Cohen, who paid adult-film star Stormy Daniels to prevent her from discussing an alleged affair with Trump before the 2016 presidential election. Trump has denied the affair. His legal team has also argued that the state’s efforts to regulate federal campaign finance issues are preempted by federal law.
Looking Ahead
The appeals court’s decision sends the case back to the district court for further review, prolonging the legal battle over the hush money conviction. A spokesman for Trump’s legal team stated, “President Trump continues to win in his fight against Radical Democrat Lawfare,” asserting that the Supreme Court’s immunity decision and other legal precedents mandate the overturning and dismissal of the Manhattan District Attorney’s case.
