Federal Judge Denies Trump's Effort to Move Hush Money Case to Federal Court

A federal judge has once again rejected President Donald Trump's legal bid to have his New York state criminal hush money case transferred to federal court. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein ruled that the grounds presented by Trump's legal team were "neither new nor legally sufficient" to warrant such a move.

The case, which stems from Trump's payment of hush money to adult film star Stormy Daniels during the 2016 presidential election, has been a focal point of legal scrutiny. Trump's legal team has been fighting to have the case moved to federal court, arguing that the case is more appropriately handled at the federal level due to its implications on presidential immunity and federal preemption.

Hellerstein's latest ruling comes after the US Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in July 2024, which stated that presidents are protected from criminal prosecution for official acts and that prosecutors cannot introduce evidence involving official acts, even if they are pursuing alleged crimes involving a president's private conduct.

Despite the Supreme Court's ruling, Hellerstein maintained his position that Trump's acts as charged in the state's case against him were private and unrelated to his federal office. "The People's prosecution arises from President Trump's private conduct surrounding the reimbursement of hush money payments to an adult film star," Hellerstein wrote in his ruling. "That conduct, and the challenged evidence, bears no substantive relation to his position in federal office."

Trump's legal team has appealed the judge's decision, arguing that the Supreme Court's immunity ruling and other legal precedents dictate that the case should be moved to federal court and ultimately dismissed. "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," a spokesman for Trump's legal team said in a statement.

The case has significant implications for Trump's presidency, as he would be the first president to be convicted of a felony. Despite the guilty finding, Trump was sentenced to an unconditional discharge, meaning he faced no penalties and the conviction was essentially in name only.

Trump's defense team has long argued that he cannot be prosecuted in connection to the hush money scheme because he is protected by presidential immunity. They claim that he reimbursed his former personal attorney Michael Cohen while in office for a cover-up scheme Cohen orchestrated during the 2016 election.

In his latest ruling, Hellerstein wrote, "There is no way that discussions regarding hush money payments to cover up the President's relations with Stormy Daniels could be an official act. An affair, or a cover-up of an affair, is not within the "'outer perimeter' of the President's official responsibilities."

The debate over whether Manhattan prosecutors improperly introduced evidence involving White House staffers' actions at the hush money trial is a central issue in the case. Hellerstein disagreed with Trump's legal team's argument, stating, "A president's assistant can work on unofficial, personal matters for the president."

This is not the first time that Trump's legal team has sought to have the case moved to federal court. They made a similar request before the state trial, but it was denied. The federal appellate court that considered the case last fall did not weigh in on whether the Supreme Court's immunity decision should have influenced the outcome.

The case is now moving through state appellate channels, with Trump's appeal of his conviction still pending. Despite the setbacks, Trump's legal team remains determined to have the case heard in federal court. The ongoing legal battle over the hush money case is likely to continue for some time, with the ultimate decision resting on the interpretation of the Supreme Court's immunity ruling and other legal precedents.