In a decision that reverberated through the legal and political landscapes, U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein on Friday, August 28, 2026, rejected President Donald Trump’s latest attempt to move his New York criminal hush money case to federal court. The ruling marks the third time Hellerstein has denied such a request from the former president, maintaining that Trump’s arguments for removal were neither new nor legally sufficient, despite the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity that Trump’s legal team had hoped would tip the scales in his favor.
Trump, who was convicted in May 2024 on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related to a $130,000 payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels (Stephanie Clifford) ahead of the 2016 presidential election, has fought doggedly to overturn the verdict. His legal team’s latest gambit was to shift the case from New York state court to federal court, a maneuver that, if successful, could have led to the conviction being vacated and offered a more favorable appellate path.
Judge Hellerstein, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton and a veteran of the Manhattan federal bench, was unequivocal in his ruling. “The grounds for a second removal cited by Defendant, Donald J. Trump, are neither new nor legally sufficient. He has failed to show good cause and diligence,” Hellerstein wrote, according to reporting by Nexstar Media. He further emphasized that Trump’s delay in filing for removal—waiting nearly two months after his conviction and after unsuccessfully seeking relief in state court—constituted a “quintessential strategic decision.” Hellerstein added, “The fact that he later came to view that decision as a poor one is not sufficient, by itself, to establish cause.”
The case’s journey through the courts has been anything but straightforward. Trump’s initial effort to move the case to federal court came before his trial, but Hellerstein rejected that bid. After Trump’s conviction, and following the Supreme Court’s landmark July 1, 2024, ruling that presidents enjoy presumptive immunity from prosecution for official acts, an appeals panel ordered Hellerstein to reconsider Trump’s request. The panel noted that the judge may have brushed aside Trump’s arguments too quickly, instructing him to revisit the issue in light of the Supreme Court’s decision.
Yet, Hellerstein remained unmoved by the new legal landscape. He wrote, “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. An affair, or a cover-up of an affair, is not within the ‘outer perimeter’ of the President’s official responsibilities.” He added that the prosecution stemmed from Trump’s private conduct and bore “no substantive relation to his position in federal office.” In other words, paying hush money to silence an alleged affair was not an act protected by presidential immunity.
Trump’s legal team, undeterred, immediately filed a notice of appeal to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. In a statement, a spokesperson for Trump’s lawyers argued, “The Supreme Court’s historic decision on Immunity, the Federal and New York State Constitutions, and other established legal precedent mandate that the Witch Hunt perpetrated by the Manhattan DA be removed to federal court, and immediately overturned and dismissed.” The spokesperson added, “President Trump has already prevailed in this case at the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, and today’s baseless and lawless decision contradicts that correct ruling. President Trump will be filing a powerful appeal, and will continue defeating Democrat weaponization at every turn.”
Despite Trump’s fervent claims, every judge to consider the immunity argument has so far rejected it. Hellerstein’s ruling echoed that consensus, stating that “paying hush money to an adult film star or engaging in a cover-up of an embarrassment are not subsumed in presidential immunity.” The Manhattan District Attorney’s office, led by Alvin Bragg, declined to comment on the ruling, as reported by multiple outlets.
The hush money prosecution is just one chapter in Trump’s lengthy legal saga. Of the four criminal cases brought against him as he campaigned for another term in the White House, the New York case was the only one to go to trial; the others were dismissed. Trump’s conviction in the hush money case made him the first president in U.S. history to be convicted of a felony, though he was sentenced in January 2025 to unconditional discharge—meaning no penalties were imposed, and the conviction was essentially in name only.
Trump’s defense has centered on the argument that the reimbursement of hush money payments, which took place while he was in office, was protected by presidential immunity. His lawyers contended that evidence presented at trial—particularly involving White House staffers—should have been excluded, as it related to his official duties. Hellerstein was unconvinced: “A president’s assistant can work on unofficial, personal matters for the president,” he wrote, rejecting the notion that the conduct at issue was within the scope of Trump’s federal office.
The legal wrangling has been further complicated by the actions of Michael Cohen, Trump’s former fixer and the prosecution’s star witness. Cohen, who made the payment to Daniels, has since reconciled with Trump and claimed he was coerced into testifying, adding another twist to the already tangled case. Trump has seized on Cohen’s statements, arguing that the case against him was “weaponized.”
While Trump presses his appeal in federal court, his conviction is also being challenged in New York’s state appellate courts. The state appeal is ongoing and could ultimately reach the New York Court of Appeals, and possibly the U.S. Supreme Court if Trump is unsuccessful at lower levels. Legal experts note that the federal route, had it been successful, might have provided a faster track to the nation’s highest court.
This defeat is only the latest in a string of legal setbacks for Trump. Since 2025, he has faced substantial civil judgments, including multimillion-dollar verdicts in lawsuits brought by writer E. Jean Carroll for sexual abuse and defamation. In April, a federal judge dismissed Trump’s $10 billion defamation suit against The Wall Street Journal and Rupert Murdoch, though he was given the opportunity to amend his complaint.
Despite these setbacks, Trump and his supporters remain defiant. They continue to frame the prosecutions as politically motivated, a view that resonates with many of his followers. Meanwhile, critics of the former president argue that the legal process has demonstrated that no one—even a former president—is above the law.
As the appeals process unfolds, both in state and federal courts, the nation watches closely. Trump’s legal odyssey is far from over, and the outcome of these battles will not only shape his personal fate but could also set precedents for presidential power and accountability for years to come.