A Manhattan federal judge ruled that Trump waited too long and lacked a viable federal-officer basis to move his already-decided hush-money case out of New York state court. The ruling leaves his 34-count conviction intact for now, but does not decide his pending direct appeal.
A federal judge’s latest rejection of Donald Trump’s effort to move his New York criminal case into federal court is a meaningful legal loss, but it is not the final word on his 2024 conviction.
In a 35-page order issued August 28, U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein denied Trump permission to make a second, late attempt to remove the case from Manhattan state court. Hellerstein concluded that Trump had not shown the required “good cause” for the delay and that the underlying prosecution did not concern conduct undertaken under color of federal office.
The practical effect: Trump’s conviction on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records remains in place, and the case stays in New York’s courts. But Trump’s separate direct appeal of the conviction to New York’s Appellate Division, First Department, remains pending. That appeal—not Friday’s removal ruling—is the principal route through which the conviction could still be reversed or modified.
This was not a new criminal trial or a ruling on every appeal issue
Headlines about a judge refusing to “move Trump’s criminal case” can obscure the unusual procedural posture. Trump was not seeking a new trial in federal court. He was asking for permission to transfer an already-tried, already-sentenced state prosecution to federal district court, years after his April 2023 arraignment and after judgment had been entered.
Federal law generally requires a defendant seeking to remove a state criminal prosecution to act within 30 days of arraignment, or before trial, whichever comes first. The statute permits a later filing only for good cause and says grounds that existed at the time of an earlier removal effort are ordinarily waived.
Trump first tried to remove the case in May 2023. Hellerstein sent it back to state court that July, finding that the charged conduct was personal rather than official presidential activity. After the Supreme Court’s July 1, 2024, decision in Trump v. United States established broad criminal immunity for certain official presidential acts, Trump waited 59 days before filing another removal notice and 64 days before formally seeking the court’s permission to do so.
Hellerstein denied that attempt in September 2024. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit later vacated that ruling and instructed him to more fully consider whether the Supreme Court’s immunity decision changed the analysis, whether late removal was legally available at this stage, and whether Trump had a colorable federal defense.
Friday’s order was Hellerstein’s response to that appellate mandate. He again answered no.
The judge ruled on both timing and substance
Trump’s lawyers argued that they gave the state trial judge, Juan Merchan, an opportunity to address the new immunity decision before going to federal court. They said the urgency became clear when Merchan indicated in August 2024 that he would decide the immunity dispute shortly before a scheduled sentencing date.
Hellerstein rejected that explanation. He wrote that Trump could have sought removal immediately after the Supreme Court decision but instead chose to pursue relief in state court first. The judge characterized the sequence as a strategic choice, not a circumstance establishing good cause for missing the statutory deadline.
That procedural holding alone was enough to deny Trump permission to file another removal notice. But Hellerstein also addressed the merits, concluding that the federal defenses Trump raised were not colorable on the facts of this prosecution.
The state case concerned a scheme alleged to have begun before Trump became president: suppressing negative information during the 2016 campaign and then disguising reimbursements to Michael Cohen in 2017 as legal expenses. A Manhattan jury found Trump guilty on May 30, 2024. Merchan denied Trump’s post-verdict immunity motion in December 2024 and imposed an unconditional discharge on January 10, 2025, leaving the conviction in place without jail, a fine or probation.
Trump argued that trial evidence involving White House aide Hope Hicks, former executive assistant Madeleine Westerhout, his communications and social-media posts involved official presidential acts protected by the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling.
Hellerstein disagreed after examining the disputed evidence item by item. He found that discussions with Hicks about responding to press inquiries concerned a personal matter, not an official government function. Westerhout’s testimony, he wrote, concerned personal checks reimbursing Cohen. A claimed conversation involving then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions, as relayed through Cohen, concerned Trump’s private arrangements and an independent agency, not the attorney general’s use of Justice Department authority.
The judge also found that four disputed posts from Trump’s personal Twitter account were unofficial communications. The account had been used for both governmental and personal statements, Hellerstein noted, so the key question was their content and context. In his view, posts defending Cohen, discussing the Daniels agreement, criticizing Cohen or commenting on Paul Manafort addressed private or political matters—not presidential duties.
The ruling also rejects a federal-election-law argument
Trump additionally argued that federal campaign-finance law preempted the New York prosecution. Hellerstein said that argument had already been considered in the original removal litigation and was not revived by a change in the state’s theory at trial.
The judge emphasized that New York’s felony business-records statute is a generally applicable fraud law. The prosecution needed to prove false business entries, intent to defraud and intent to commit, aid or conceal another crime. It did not require the state to prove a federal campaign-finance violation, Hellerstein wrote.
That distinction matters because the judge was not deciding whether every state law touching an election is permissible. He was deciding whether this specific state prosecution intruded on a field reserved exclusively to federal campaign-finance law. His answer was no.
What Trump can still do
Trump’s legal team said it would appeal Hellerstein’s ruling and again described the Manhattan prosecution as politically motivated. That is an attributed defense claim, not a finding made by the federal court. Hellerstein’s order does not adjudicate prosecutors’ motives; it decides removal jurisdiction, timing and the asserted immunity and preemption defenses.
An appeal of this decision could return to the Second Circuit. But even a further federal appeal would not replace Trump’s direct state-court appeal, which raises separate challenges to the conviction. Readers should be wary of claims that Friday’s order “ended” all litigation over the case—or, conversely, that it erased the legal significance of Trump’s immunity arguments. Neither is accurate.
The verified bottom line is narrower: a federal judge has again refused to transfer the completed New York prosecution into federal district court. Trump remains convicted while his state appeal continues, and the next consequential development will be whether an appellate court changes that status.
