Judge Hellerstein Rejects Trump's Third Attempt to Move Hush Money Case to Federal Court

Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein of the Southern District of New York shut down President Trump's latest attempt to erase his hush money conviction on Friday, ruling that Trump's arguments were, in the judge's words, "neither new nor legally sufficient."

Hellerstein has now denied Trump's bid to move the state criminal case into federal court three times, according to CNBC. The case involves Trump's May 2024 conviction on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records tied to a $130,000 payment to adult film actress Stephanie Clifford, known professionally as Stormy Daniels, to keep her quiet about a 2006 sexual encounter before the 2016 election.

Why Trump tried again

Trump's legal team argued that the Supreme Court's July 2024 ruling in Trump v. United States, which grants presidents at least presumptive immunity for official acts, should void his conviction. A federal appeals court had ordered Hellerstein to reconsider his prior denial in light of that immunity decision, according to Reason.

Hellerstein's 35-page opinion, cited by Axios, rejected that argument on the merits. "There is no way that discussions regarding hush money payments to cover up the President's relations with Stormy Daniels could be an official act," the judge wrote.

PBS, citing the Associated Press, quoted Hellerstein going further: "paying hush money to an adult film star or engaging in a cover-up of an embarrassment are not subsumed in presidential immunity." He also rejected Trump's claim that trial testimony from former aides Hope Hicks and Madeleine Westerhout, along with Michael Cohen, violated presidential immunity protections.

Timing mattered as much as the merits

Hellerstein didn't stop at rejecting the immunity argument on substance. He also ruled Trump's team missed its window to act, according to CNBC and ABC News. The judge found Trump failed to show "good cause and diligence" in seeking removal after his conviction and after the Supreme Court's immunity ruling came down.

PBS quoted Hellerstein's sharper line on process: Trump's lawyers apparently believed the judge's job was simply to "certify the record" up to the 2nd Circuit. "Federal district courts are not certifying clerks," he wrote.

CNBC also quoted Hellerstein telling Trump he couldn't game the system by trying one court and then switching venues once the outcome looked bad: "He cannot play one court against another; he cannot seek victory in one court, and then, when it becomes apparent that the court will rule against him, seek to remove his case to another court."

What happens next

Trump's legal team filed a notice of appeal to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals later Friday, according to CNBC and PBS. A spokesperson for Trump's legal team called the ruling "baseless and lawless" and said the Supreme Court's immunity decision, along with federal and state constitutional law, "mandate that the Witch Hunt perpetrated by the Manhattan DA be removed to federal court, and immediately overturned and dismissed," per statements provided to Axios and PBS.

Trump's team believes the trial improperly used evidence and testimony touching his conduct as president, and that the Supreme Court's immunity framework should have barred it. Whether that argument succeeds is now before the 2nd Circuit.

Trump was sentenced in January 2025 to an unconditional discharge, meaning his conviction stands but he faces no penalty. His separate appeal of the underlying conviction remains pending before the Appellate Division, First Department, in New York state court, according to Reason's summary of the opinion.

Coverage differences worth flagging

The Daily Beast's write-up leaned harder into color than the other outlets, noting Hellerstein is a Clinton appointee and describing the ruling as a "brutal takedown" and "humiliation." That framing is editorial. The actual legal reasoning in Hellerstein's opinion, as reported across Reason, Axios, CNBC, ABC News and PBS, centered on two distinct findings: the payments weren't official acts, and Trump's team blew the deadline to seek removal even if they had been.

Reason's coverage, drawing on legal blogger Eugene Volokh, focused most closely on the procedural mechanics under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1442(a)(1) and 1455(b)(1), the removal statutes at the center of the dispute, giving readers the clearest look at what the 2nd Circuit actually told Hellerstein to examine on remand.

Separately, Ars Technica reported this week that a federal judge in California, Rita Lin, ruled the Trump administration illegally retaliated against AI company Anthropic under the First Amendment after it refused to drop safeguards on its Claude models for military use. That case is unrelated to the New York prosecution but adds to a run of federal court rulings against administration actions this year, alongside the E. Jean Carroll civil judgments CNBC noted the president is separately appealing.

The immediate next step is procedural. The 2nd Circuit will decide whether to take up Trump's appeal of Hellerstein's removal ruling, a process that could take months. No date has been set.