Judge Hellerstein Denies Trump’s Second Bid to Move Hush Money Case to Federal Court

Key points

• Judge Alvin Hellerstein denied Trump’s motion to remove the case from state to federal jurisdiction for the second time.
• The ruling followed a federal appeals court order requiring Hellerstein to review the request after the Supreme Court’s 2024 presidential immunity opinion.
• Hellerstein stated the grounds for removal were neither new nor legally sufficient, and Trump failed to demonstrate diligence.
• Trump’s legal team confirmed they will appeal the ruling.
• The case involves 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related to a $130,000 payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels.

Background

This ruling follows the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision on presidential immunity, which established protections for 'official acts.' Trump has argued this immunity shields evidence and testimony in the hush money case. The Manhattan conviction remains a central legal challenge for the administration, with prior attempts to delay sentencing also rejected by the court.

How outlets are covering it

CNN and ABC News reported the judge’s denial as a final rejection of the removal bid, emphasizing the lack of new legal grounds. Law.com highlighted the procedural failure, noting the defense did not justify the delayed filing. AP News framed the outcome as a continued loss for Trump in efforts to erase the conviction. All outlets agreed on the judge’s decision but differed in emphasis: CNN focused on the 'official action' argument, while Law.com stressed the procedural deficiencies in the filing.

Why it matters

The ruling reinforces the state court’s jurisdiction over the hush money case, limiting Trump’s ability to leverage federal immunity protections to vacate the conviction. It sets the stage for an appeal and underscores the ongoing legal battles surrounding the 2024 presidential immunity ruling.

What to watch

Trump’s attorneys are expected to file an appeal of the denial. The Manhattan District Attorney may challenge the appeal, as noted in related coverage. The case’s trajectory will depend on the appellate court’s review of the immunity arguments.