U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein has rejected President Donald Trump's latest attempt to transfer his New York hush money conviction to federal court, ruling for the third time that Trump's legal team failed to present new or legally sufficient grounds for the move. Trump's lawyers have vowed to appeal.
The decision, handed down Thursday, keeps Trump's 34 felony counts of falsifying business records firmly within the New York state court system, where he is also pursuing a separate appellate challenge to the conviction itself. The ruling lands a blunt message: strategic choices have consequences, even for a sitting president.
Hellerstein's written opinion cut through Trump's arguments with pointed language. The judge found that Trump's delay in seeking federal court removal amounted to a deliberate litigation strategy, not a justifiable one.
As Breitbart reported, Hellerstein wrote that Trump's legal team made a conscious choice to first seek relief in state court, effectively forfeiting the right to pursue federal remedies later. The judge stated plainly:
"Trump's delay in filing for removal constitutes a quintessential strategic decision, and the fact that he later came to view that decision as a poor one is not sufficient, by itself, to establish cause."
On the substance, Hellerstein found the arguments recycled. He wrote that "the grounds for a second removal cited by Defendant, Donald J. Trump, are neither new nor legally sufficient," as Newsmax detailed. The judge added a single, sharp summary: "He has failed to show good cause and diligence."
Trump's central legal theory rested on presidential immunity. His team argued that the Supreme Court's immunity ruling should shield him and that the case belonged in federal court, where dismissal on those grounds would follow. Hellerstein was not persuaded.
The judge drew a clear line between official presidential conduct and the personal behavior at the heart of the case. The Washington Examiner reported Hellerstein's pointed finding:
"Paying hush money to an adult film star or engaging in a cover-up of an embarrassment are not subsumed in presidential immunity."
That language leaves little ambiguity. Hellerstein treated the underlying conduct as personal, not presidential, and found no constitutional basis to move the case out of Manhattan.
A Manhattan jury convicted Trump in May 2024 on all 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. The charges stemmed from a $130,000 hush money payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels before the 2016 presidential election. Prosecutors argued that Trump directed the payment and then orchestrated a scheme to disguise the reimbursements as legal expenses.
The conviction made Trump the first former and current U.S. president convicted of a crime, as the New York Post noted. Judge Juan Merchan sentenced Trump on January 10, 2025, to an unconditional discharge. That outcome left the conviction on his record but imposed no jail time, no fine, and no probation.
The unconditional discharge created an unusual legal posture. Trump carries 34 felony convictions but faces zero tangible punishment from them. The conviction's weight is entirely reputational and legal, not custodial.
This marks the third time Hellerstein has blocked Trump from transferring the case. Each attempt has followed the same basic playbook: argue that the case involves conduct connected to federal office, invoke immunity protections, and seek dismissal once the case lands in federal court.
Each time, Hellerstein has said no. The judge's latest ruling emphasizes that Trump's team had opportunities to pursue federal removal earlier and chose not to. That choice, Hellerstein found, was strategic. And the court will not let a litigant undo a bad bet after the fact.
A spokesperson for Trump's legal team issued a defiant statement after the ruling, as ABC7 New York reported:
"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 statement signals that an appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals is coming. Trump's lawyers have consistently framed the Manhattan prosecution as politically motivated, and that posture has not changed.
Trump is now fighting the conviction on two parallel fronts. In state court, he is pursuing a direct appeal of the jury verdict through New York's appellate process. In federal court, he has tried three times to remove the case entirely, seeking dismissal on immunity grounds.
The federal track has now hit a wall for the third time. The state appellate track remains active, but no ruling has been issued on the merits of that challenge. Investigators and courts will need to determine whether any of Trump's remaining legal arguments can gain traction in either forum.
The state appeal will likely focus on trial-level rulings by Judge Merchan, including evidentiary decisions and jury instructions. The federal appeal, if it proceeds, will test whether the Second Circuit sees the immunity question differently than Hellerstein does.
Trump's legal team has promised what they call a powerful appeal. The Second Circuit will review Hellerstein's ruling, and the timeline for that review remains unclear. If the Second Circuit affirms, Trump could seek Supreme Court review, though the high court takes very few cases.
Meanwhile, the state appellate process moves on its own clock. New York's intermediate appellate courts handle criminal appeals with their own briefing schedules and oral argument calendars. Neither track offers a quick resolution.
Three federal judges have now told Trump the same thing: this case belongs in state court. Whether a fourth will see it differently is the only question left on this track, and the answer will say a great deal about how far immunity arguments can stretch.
