President Donald Trump has suffered another legal setback after a federal judge refused to move his New York hush money case from state court to federal court. The ruling keeps the case within New York’s judicial system as Trump continues efforts to overturn his criminal conviction.
District Judge Alvin Hellerstein issued the decision on Friday, concluding that Trump’s latest arguments failed to provide a valid legal basis for transferring the case. The judge said the claims raised by the president’s legal team were not new and were not strong enough to justify federal court involvement.
The decision follows a lengthy legal battle over where the case should be heard. Trump’s lawyers have argued that federal courts should review the matter because some events connected to the case occurred while he was serving as president. They also pointed to the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity ruling as support for their position.
Hellerstein, however, found that the conduct at the center of the prosecution was private in nature and unrelated to Trump’s official duties in the White House.
The case focuses on payments made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels before the 2016 presidential election. Prosecutors said business records were falsified to conceal the true purpose of those payments. A New York jury later convicted Trump on 34 felony counts tied to those records.
Trump has denied wrongdoing and continues to challenge both the conviction and the legal process that led to it.
In his ruling, Hellerstein stated that discussions about hush money payments and efforts to cover up a personal relationship could not be classified as official presidential actions. He wrote that such conduct falls outside the responsibilities of a president and therefore does not qualify for the protections outlined in the Supreme Court’s immunity decision.
The judge also rejected claims that prosecutors improperly used evidence involving White House staff members during the trial. Trump’s attorneys argued that the use of such evidence raised concerns under the immunity ruling because it involved individuals connected to the presidency.
Hellerstein disagreed. He said presidential aides can assist with personal matters that have no connection to government work. Because of that, he found no reason to treat the evidence as protected official activity.
The ruling came after a federal appeals court instructed Hellerstein to review the issue again. The appeals court issued that order following the Supreme Court’s landmark immunity decision in 2024. While the higher court required another review, it did not direct Hellerstein to reach a different outcome.
After considering new arguments from both sides, the judge reaffirmed his earlier position. He concluded that the state prosecution concerns private conduct and should remain in state court.
Trump’s legal team immediately appealed Friday’s ruling. In a statement, his representatives argued that constitutional protections, presidential immunity, and established legal principles support moving the case to federal court and overturning the conviction.
The effort to secure a federal venue is viewed as a key part of Trump’s broader legal strategy. A federal court review could provide a faster route to the U.S. Supreme Court and allow additional arguments related to presidential authority and federal law.
The judge also addressed the timing of Trump’s renewed request. He noted that Trump first sought relief in state court before returning to federal court with a new removal request.
According to Hellerstein, that decision was a strategic legal choice. He wrote that waiting to seek federal removal weakened the argument and did not provide sufficient cause for changing courts at a later stage.
Although Trump was convicted, he received an unconditional discharge rather than jail time, probation, or a fine. Even so, the conviction remains historically significant because it made him the first U.S. president convicted of a felony.
The Trump Hush Money Appeal now continues through New York’s appellate courts. Legal experts say the case could eventually reach the state’s highest court. Depending on future rulings, some issues may later be considered by the U.S. Supreme Court.
For now, Friday’s decision ensures that the appeal process will remain in state court, keeping one of the nation’s most closely watched legal cases on its current path.
