In a decision that underscores the Trump administration’s ongoing legal battles, U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein on Friday rejected President Trump’s bid to transfer his New York hush‑money conviction to federal court. The judge said the president had offered no new evidence or legal theory that would justify overturning his earlier rulings.
Judge’s Reasoning
Judge Hellerstein reiterated his prior findings, stating that the reasons presented by the president’s legal team were “neither new nor legally sufficient.” He added that President Trump “failed to show good cause and diligence” in seeking removal of the case from state jurisdiction.
The ruling marks the third time Hellerstein has denied the president’s request to have the Manhattan federal court assume control of the case that led to his conviction. Each denial has been framed by the judge as a strategic misstep by Trump’s lawyers, who he said took “two bites at the apple” without proper timing.
President’s Response
According to a statement from the president’s legal team, the ruling is “baseless and lawless.” The spokesperson invoked the Supreme Court’s historic decision on presidential immunity, arguing that the Manhattan District Attorney’s prosecution should be removed to federal court and dismissed. The team pledged to file a “powerful appeal” and continue to fight what they describe as Democratic weaponization.
Background of the Conviction
President Trump was convicted in May 2024 on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to conceal a $130,000 payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels. The payment was intended to silence Daniels’ claim of a past sexual encounter, a claim Trump has consistently denied. While the conviction carried an unconditional discharge—leaving the verdict intact but imposing no additional punishment—it remains a historic first: a sitting U.S. president convicted of a crime.
Legal History
After the March 2023 indictment, Trump’s lawyers first sought to have the state trial judge, Juan Merchan, dismiss the verdict on immunity grounds. When that effort stalled, they turned to Judge Hellerstein, asking for removal to federal court. The request was initially denied, then reconsidered after a 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals order in late 2025 that the judge had failed to consider certain issues related to official acts.
The appellate panel did not dictate how the judge should rule but instructed him to examine whether Trump had “diligently sought” removal and whether the case could still be moved after a state conviction and sentencing.
Strategic Timing Questioned
During oral arguments in February, Judge Hellerstein criticized the timing of the president’s removal request. He noted that Trump’s team waited until after the state trial verdict and sentencing, rather than filing immediately after the Supreme Court’s July 2024 immunity decision. The judge suggested that this delay constituted a “strategic decision” that forfeited the right to pursue federal remedies.
Trump’s lead attorney, Jeffrey Wall, defended the timing, arguing that prosecutors rushed the trial and that the legal team needed time to assess the impact of the Supreme Court ruling. The judge, however, remained unconvinced, emphasizing that a timely filing could have avoided the current impasse.
Next Steps
The Trump administration has indicated it will appeal the decision, maintaining that the conviction should be vacated on constitutional grounds. The appeal will likely revisit arguments about presidential immunity, the interplay of federal and state constitutional provisions, and the precedent set by the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision.
State prosecutors have not commented on the latest ruling.
Original reporting: Alexandria, VA News – WTOP News — read the source article.
