A federal judge in Manhattan signaled skepticism on Wednesday about President Donald Trump’s latest attempt to upend his hush money conviction in New York by moving the case to federal court, according to arguments described by the Associated Press. Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein spent nearly three hours questioning lawyers during proceedings in Manhattan federal court, and he said he would rule later.
The request is tied to how presidential-immunity rules apply after the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling about a month after Trump’s May 2024 conviction, with the high court holding that presidents and former presidents cannot be prosecuted for official acts. In court, Hellerstein acknowledged that the Supreme Court decision raised new legal questions that had not been considered previously, but he said it made clear that a president is not above the law.
Hellerstein sparred with Trump’s lawyer, Jeffrey Wall, during the hearing and suggested the effort was undermined by timing. He argued that Trump’s legal team waited too long to seek federal court relief after the Supreme Court’s decision, and he characterized the move as requiring “two bites at the apple.” Hellerstein also suggested the exercise could be moot because the legal strategy arrived after the state case had progressed significantly.
Wall argued that the timeline after the Supreme Court ruling left Trump’s team constrained because sentencing was scheduled about 10 days later, and he said the district attorney’s office that prosecuted the case could have criticized a move to federal court as premature. Hellerstein pushed back, saying Trump’s team had instead sought to have the verdict thrown out first before turning to the question of federal court transfer. The judge said Trump’s lawyers did not ask him to intervene until nearly two months later and called that a “strategic decision,” adding that by going to state court first Trump’s team cost him the right to pursue federal remedies.
In his discussion of the state-to-federal transfer request, Hellerstein noted that there are general deadlines for removal, including a requirement that such a request be made within 30 days of an arraignment, while also saying exceptions may be possible if “good cause” is shown. He challenged Wall’s portrayal of necessity, and Wall responded that the approach matched what he said “any sensible litigant would do.” Hellerstein replied “Not so,” saying the choice was made by the defense and that they could have come directly to federal court by filing a notice of removal, which the judge suggested would have prevented sentencing.
Prosecutors oppose the shift, and the district attorney’s office that brought the state case wants the conviction to remain in state court. After the hearing, Hellerstein thanked Wall and Steven Wu, a lawyer from the Manhattan district attorney’s office, for what he called “very provocative arguments.”
The legal posture of the case also reflects a directive from the 2nd Circuit. In November, the appeals court ordered Hellerstein to reconsider his earlier decision that kept the case in state court, saying that in his September 2025 ruling he failed to consider “important issues relevant” to Trump’s request to move the case. The appeals panel said it was not deciding how Hellerstein should rule, but it directed closer review of how evidence admitted during the state trial might relate to immunized official acts.
Hellerstein previously denied Trump’s requests to move the case at two points, first after Trump’s March 2023 indictment and then again after the post-verdict ruling that is at issue Wednesday. In that earlier ruling, Hellerstein said Trump’s lawyers had failed to meet the burden for changing jurisdiction and he said the falsifying-business-records conviction involved personal conduct rather than official acts that the Supreme Court said are immune from prosecution.
Trump was convicted in May 2024 on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records connected to the concealment of a hush money payment involving adult film actor Stormy Daniels, whose allegations of an affair with Trump were said to threaten his 2016 presidential campaign. The judge sentenced Trump to an unconditional discharge, which left the conviction intact while sparing him punishment. Trump denies Daniels’ allegations and has sought to overturn the conviction through state appellate proceedings.
In its November order, the 2nd Circuit said Hellerstein should consider whether evidence introduced at the state trial relates to immunized official acts and, if so, whether evidentiary immunity transformed the hush money case. The appeals judges also suggested Hellerstein should weigh whether Trump can argue any relevant actions were taken as part of White House duties, whether Trump “diligently sought” to have the case moved to federal court, and whether the case can even be moved to federal court now that Trump has been convicted and sentenced in state court.