US Judge Rejects Trump's Third Bid to Move Hush Money Case to Federal Court
Theo Al Jazeera English
Judge Alvin Hellerstein has for the third time rejected Donald Trump's bid to move his hush money case to federal court, ruling that the president's arguments are "not new and lack legal merit." The judge also dismissed Trump's immunity claims, stating that paying hush money to conceal an affair is not an official presidential act.
On March 7, Judge Alvin Hellerstein rejected President Donald Trump's third petition to move his hush money case from New York state court to federal court, as Trump seeks to overturn his felony conviction.
In the ruling, Judge Hellerstein found that Trump's arguments were "not new and lack sufficient legal basis." This marks the third time the court has denied a similar request from the U.S. leader.
Trump became the first former president in U.S. history to be criminally convicted in 2024, when a New York jury found him guilty on 34 counts of falsifying business records. Prosecutors alleged that he concealed a payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels to avoid negative impact on his 2016 presidential campaign.
Trump maintains that the conviction should be overturned, citing a 2024 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that expanded the concept of presidential immunity. However, Judge Hellerstein again rejected this argument.
"Paying hush money to an adult film actress or concealing an embarrassment does not fall within the scope of presidential immunity," the judge wrote in his ruling.
Trump's legal team immediately announced plans to appeal, calling the decision "baseless and unlawful." A statement from Trump's team read: "President Trump will file a strong appeal and will continue to defeat the Democrats' weaponization at every turn."
The case involves the $130,000 payment Trump is alleged to have made through his lawyer Michael Cohen to buy Stormy Daniels' silence, after she claimed to have had an affair with him while he was married. Trump has denied any sexual relationship with Daniels.
In New York, falsifying business records is typically a misdemeanor, but can be elevated to a felony if done to conceal another crime. In this case, prosecutors accused Trump of attempting to illegally influence the 2016 election, which he won.
The New York prosecution was one of four cases Trump faced in 2023 between his two presidential terms. The others involved allegations of illegally retaining classified documents and attempting to undermine the 2020 election. Those cases were all dismissed after he won re-election in 2024.
Of the four indictments, only the New York case went to trial. Although the felony conviction meant Trump could face prison time or fines, Judge Juan Merchan ultimately sentenced him to an unconditional discharge on January 10, 2025, just days before his second inauguration. This meant he faced no jail time or fines, but the convictions remain on his record.
During the appeal process, Trump's legal team cited the Supreme Court's July 2024 ruling that expanded presidential immunity. Previously, presidents were shielded from prosecution for actions within their constitutional duties. The 2024 ruling broadened this to grant presidents "presumptive immunity" for any act that could be considered an "official act."
Trump's lawyers argued that the hush money case involved evidence from his first term, thus falling under this immunity. However, Judge Hellerstein rejected that view, stating that discussions about the hush money payment could not be considered an "official act" of the presidency.
"There is no way that discussions about paying hush money to conceal the President's relationship with Stormy Daniels could be an official act. An extramarital affair, or concealing an extramarital affair, does not fall within the 'outer perimeter' of the President's official responsibilities," the judge wrote.
Previously, in November 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit directed Judge Hellerstein to reconsider the case in light of the Supreme Court ruling, without giving specific instructions. In his new ruling, Hellerstein also rejected the implication from Trump's team that he would simply accept the appellate court's decision.
"Federal district courts are not certifying clerks," the judge emphasized.