Appeals Court Revives Trump's Effort to Overturn Hush Money Conviction

Thu Nov 06 2025 20:39:29 GMT+0200 (Eastern European Standard Time)

In a significant ruling, a federal appeals court has ordered a lower court to reconsider Donald Trump's plea to move his hush money conviction case from state to federal court, raising crucial questions about presidential immunity.

A three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that a lower court must reevaluate its refusal to move Donald Trump's hush money conviction case to federal court. The judges pointed out that the original ruling may have overlooked key evidence related to presidential immunity. While Trump contends his actions are protected, the state prosecutors argue the case must remain at the state level. The decision could have far-reaching implications for the legal boundaries regarding presidential conduct and accountability.

NEW YORK (AP) — A federal appeals court has reignited former President Donald Trump’s attempt to overturn his hush money conviction by mandating a lower court to reconsider its decision to keep the case in state court rather than allowing it to move to federal court.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals determined that U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein had not adequately addressed important issues regarding Trump’s requests pertaining to the presidential immunity that he seeks to invoke.

Background to the ruling includes Judge Hellerstein’s previous denials to move the case following both Trump’s indictment in March 2023 and his conviction in May 2024. Hellerstein had maintained that the allegations of business record falsifications were personal, not linked to Trump’s official duties.

However, the appeals court has now instructed Hellerstein to closely analyze any evidence that Trump believes ties to his official acts during his presidency that may affect the current jurisdiction of the case.

The focus of debate continues to center around whether the case against Trump is rooted in personal misconduct or actions related to his presidential duties. Should Hellerstein find merit in Trump's arguments pertaining to official acts, he may have to reassess the prosecution's reliance on such evidence during the trial.

Trump's legal team has persistently argued that federal officials, including sitting and former presidents, should be prosecuted in federal court for any charges arising from actions taken while in office. This angle has been further supported by the Supreme Court's recent rulings restricting the jurisdiction of state courts in selecting presidential influences as part of corrupt conduct.

While Judge Hellerstein previously dismissed Trump's motion due to lack of proof, the appeals court panel expressed concerns about whether the lower court had given enough attention to all the relevant evidence before making its ruling. The implications of this decision may alter the paths of accountability for future presidents facing criminal charges.