Late on Monday, October 27, 2025, the legal and political landscape surrounding former President Donald Trump took another dramatic turn. Just before midnight, Trump’s legal team filed a formal appeal against his recent Manhattan criminal conviction, marking the beginning of what is likely to be a long and contentious legal battle. The move comes as the courts, especially the Supreme Court, are increasingly drawn into the nation’s most divisive political disputes, often through unconventional legal channels that have themselves become the subject of intense scrutiny.
According to The New York Times, Trump’s appeal, a hefty 96-page document submitted to the First Department of the State Supreme Court’s Appellate Division, argues that the trial was “fatally marred” by a series of legal missteps and judicial errors. The conviction, delivered earlier in 2024, found Trump guilty on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. The jury concluded that he had approved a scheme to conceal a hush-money payment to Stormy Daniels, a porn star, made by his former fixer, Michael D. Cohen, during the 2016 presidential campaign. Trump reimbursed Cohen in 2017, a process that allegedly left a trail of 34 false documents.
The case, brought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin L. Bragg, hinged on a novel legal theory: that falsifying business records is a felony only if done to conceal another crime. Prosecutors argued that Trump’s actions were meant to hide violations of a state election law prohibiting conspiracies to promote a person’s election by “unlawful means.” Trump’s lawyers, in their appeal, seized on this point, describing the prosecution’s theory as convoluted and improper. As stated in their brief, “The D.A. concocted a purported felony by stacking time-barred misdemeanors under a convoluted legal theory, which the D.A. then improperly obscured. This case should never have seen the inside of a courtroom, let alone resulted in a conviction.”
The district attorney’s office has yet to respond publicly to the appeal, but Bragg has previously defended the charges, asserting that the unusual nature of the case matches the unusual conduct at its core. Since the historic conviction—marking the first time a former American president has been found guilty of a felony—Bragg has rarely spoken about the specifics, even as Trump’s critics and political opponents have seized on the label of “convicted felon.”
Trump’s appeal outlines five main arguments for overturning the conviction. First, it contends that federal election law should supersede the state law on which Bragg’s case depended. Second, it claims that Judge Juan M. Merchan erred by allowing jurors to consider official presidential acts, which the Supreme Court has since ruled cannot be prosecuted. Third, it argues that the judge’s instructions to the jury were improper, particularly because they did not require unanimity on which “unlawful means” were involved. The prosecution had offered several possible unlawful acts, but the jury did not have to agree on a single one. Fourth, the appeal asserts that the prosecution never established Trump’s “intent to defraud,” a necessary component of the charge. Finally, Trump’s team claims that Judge Merchan should have recused himself due to small donations he made to President Biden’s 2020 campaign and to political action committees.
Some of these arguments are not new. Trump’s lawyers had previously sought Judge Merchan’s recusal, only to be rebuffed by the same appellate court that will now consider the merits of his broader appeal. However, the panel is expected to pay particular attention to the issues of federal versus state law and the jury instructions—matters that could have implications far beyond this single case.
The appeal is expected to be a protracted affair, possibly stretching over months or even years. When Trump appealed the outcome of a civil fraud case in July 2024, the First Department took more than a year to reach a decision, ultimately issuing a split ruling that allowed the case to proceed to New York’s highest court. Trump’s criminal appeal could follow a similar trajectory, especially given the complex legal questions and the inherently political nature of the proceedings. Trump’s lawyers have also sought to expedite the process by petitioning a federal appeals court to take over the case, a move that, if successful, could send the matter to the U.S. Supreme Court more quickly. That decision is still pending.
This latest legal maneuvering unfolds against a broader backdrop of mounting tensions between the executive branch and the judiciary. As discussed in a recent podcast episode hosted by Jan Baran and featuring Josh Gerstein, Senior Legal Affairs Reporter for Politico, the Supreme Court’s so-called “shadow docket” has become a powerful tool for advancing presidential agendas through executive action, often bypassing traditional legislative processes. This docket, which allows the Court to make swift, sometimes opaque decisions on urgent matters, has played a key role in shaping policy on issues ranging from immigration enforcement to National Guard deployments in states like California, Oregon, and Illinois.
The podcast also highlighted growing criticism of the Supreme Court by lower court judges and rising concerns about the security of judges in this increasingly polarized environment. The tension between executive power and judicial review is more pronounced than ever, with upcoming cases poised to test the limits of both. Among these are Louisiana v. Callais, a major voting rights case centered on race-conscious redistricting, and a potentially landmark tariffs case that could redefine the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches.
Recent changes to the Senate confirmation process have further complicated the landscape, potentially reshaping the makeup and direction of federal agencies. The legal doctrine of the “Unitary Executive,” which argues for broad presidential control over the executive branch, has been a recurring theme in these debates and is likely to feature prominently in future Supreme Court arguments.
Josh Gerstein, who has spent more than a decade chronicling the intersection of law and politics for Politico, noted that the courts have increasingly become the battleground for America’s most contentious political fights. From the Mueller investigation to Supreme Court showdowns over same-sex marriage and Obamacare, and now to the unprecedented prosecution of a former president, the legal system is being tested in ways few could have imagined just a decade ago.
As Trump’s appeal winds its way through the courts, the outcome will resonate far beyond the fate of one man. It raises fundamental questions about the rule of law, the limits of executive power, and the independence of the judiciary in an era of deep political division. The coming months promise no shortage of legal fireworks, with the nation—and the world—watching closely.
