Trump's Hush Money Case Gets a Second Chance in Court

Thu Nov 06 2025 22:24:38 GMT+0200 (Eastern European Standard Time)

A federal appeals court revives President Trump's efforts to challenge his conviction tied to hush money payments, urging closer examination of related evidence. The outcome could redefine presidential immunity in legal contexts.

In a significant ruling, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ordered a lower court to reconsider President Trump's request to shift his hush money conviction appeal from state to federal court. The judges highlighted the need to examine whether relevant evidence from the state trial involves official presidential acts and if the case's jurisdiction should change accordingly. The ruling could reshape how former presidents are prosecuted for actions taken while in office, with implications for Trump's ongoing legal battles.

NEW YORK (AP) — In a groundbreaking decision on Thursday, a federal appeals court breathed new life into President Donald Trump’s attempts to overturn his hush money conviction. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered a lower court to reconsider its decision to retain the case in state court—a pivotal move considering the potential for presidential immunity.

A three-judge panel remarked that U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein overlooked essential issues connected to Trump’s plea to have the case moved to the federal court, where he aims to battle the conviction on grounds of presidential immunity.

Although the judges did not express a definitive stance regarding how Hellerstein should proceed, they emphasized the necessity for an in-depth evaluation of evidence presented in the original trial. The court highlighted that the state trial may have introduced evidence linked to official actions, which could influence the legal narrative.

Judge Hellerstein, appointed by Bill Clinton, previously denied Trump’s motions to change jurisdiction, arguing the failure to meet the standard for such a transfer, primarily asserting that the charges relate to Trump's personal actions rather than his presidential duties. This perspective, however, may be challenged based on the appellate court's directive.

The appeals court judges brought attention to their concerns about whether certain evidence admitted during the state court trial was indeed related to Trump’s official acts, enabling the possibility of reconsidering the case's jurisdiction.

Trump’s attorneys plan to argue that actions taken during his presidency should be scrutinized under federal law—a route that could provide significant legal protections.

Trump’s conviction for 34 counts of falsifying business records, stemming from hush money payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels, has previously clouded his 2016 presidential campaign. The legal ramifications of this decision could not only reshape Trump's current legal strategy but might also set a precedent for how future cases against former presidents are handled.

As the legal proceedings evolve, the spotlight remains on Judge Hellerstein, who now must revisit the evidence with an eye on both presidential duty and judicial precedent, potentially altering the course of Trump’s legal battles.