Judge again refuses to let Trump fight conviction in federal court
A federal judge in Manhattan has again denied President Trump's request to move his New York criminal conviction to federal court, marking the third such rejection. The judge ruled that Trump's arguments were neither new nor legally sufficient, and that he failed to show good cause. Trump had sought to use presidential immunity to dismiss charges related to a 2016 hush money payment.
This marks the third time Judge Alvin Hellerstein has rejected Trump’s bid to move his state conviction into federal court, following a Second Circuit remand that faulted the judge for dismissing the arguments too quickly. Hellerstein, a Clinton appointee, concluded the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity ruling does not cover the hush money scheme, which he described as a personal cover-up rather than an official act. Trump’s legal team has vowed a “powerful appeal,” while the Manhattan district attorney’s office declined comment. The case remains the only one of four criminal prosecutions against Trump to reach trial, with the others dismissed.
The ruling comes amid unusual developments: Michael Cohen, the prosecution’s key witness, has recently said he was coerced into testifying, a claim Trump has seized on as evidence of “weaponization.” Trump continues to pursue parallel appeals in New York state courts, but this federal avenue appears closed unless a higher court intervenes. The judge’s decision reinforces that procedural deadlines and the substance of immunity claims both weigh against removal, leaving Trump’s primary path through the state appellate system.
This decision could shape how former presidents challenge state prosecutions, reinforcing that immunity claims do not automatically override procedural rules or factual findings. If upheld, it may discourage similar removal attempts in other jurisdictions, while also fueling public debate over judicial independence and the limits of presidential protections. The outcome affects Trump’s legal standing and could influence voter perceptions of fairness in high-profile political cases, though its broader societal impact depends on subsequent appeals and how the narrative is framed by both supporters and critics.