Judge rejects Trump's third bid to erase felony conviction
Left says
- •Judge Hellerstein's 35-page ruling directly rejects the idea that covering up an affair falls within a president's official duties, reinforcing that immunity has limits.
- •The ruling underscores that Trump was attempting a 'second bite at the apple' after already testing similar immunity arguments in state court, which the law disfavors.
- •This marks the third time a federal judge has rebuffed Trump's attempt to move the case out of New York state court, reflecting a consistent and thorough judicial rejection of his legal theory.
- •The decision affirms that a jury's unanimous verdict on 34 felony counts should stand, emphasizing accountability regardless of the defendant's office.
Right says
- •Trump's legal team maintains that the Supreme Court's immunity ruling, along with constitutional protections, should have compelled removal of the case to federal court and its dismissal.
- •They argue the case represents politically motivated prosecution, describing it as a 'Witch Hunt' driven by the Manhattan DA rather than a neutral application of the law.
- •Trump's team points to a prior win at the Second Circuit Court of Appeals as evidence that his legal position has merit and that Friday's ruling contradicts that outcome.
- •The team has vowed to continue appealing, framing the fight as part of a broader effort against what they see as Democrat-led legal targeting of Trump.
Common Take
High Consensus- Trump was convicted in May 2024 on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related to a $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels.
- Judge Alvin Hellerstein has now rejected Trump's attempts to move the case to federal court on three separate occasions.
- The case centers on whether presidential immunity, as defined by the Supreme Court's 2024 ruling, extends to conduct related to the hush money payment.
- Trump's legal team has indicated plans to continue appealing the decision.
The Arguments
Left argues
Judge Hellerstein's ruling is grounded in a clear textual analysis: covering up an affair and paying hush money cannot plausibly be classified as an 'official act' within the outer perimeter of the presidency, so the Supreme Court's immunity ruling simply doesn't apply here.
Right counters
Trump's team argues the conduct occurred while he was president-elect/president and involved communications with staff like Hope Hicks in the Oval Office orbit, which they contend brings it closer to official conduct than the judge acknowledges, warranting federal review rather than summary dismissal of the removal bid.
Right argues
Trump's legal team points to a prior victory at the Second Circuit Court of Appeals as proof that his removal arguments have genuine legal merit, arguing this ruling directly contradicts that appellate precedent and should be reconciled through further appeal rather than dismissed outright.
Left counters
The Second Circuit victory addressed a narrower procedural question and did not validate the substantive immunity claim Hellerstein rejected; three separate federal judges have now found the same core argument insufficient, suggesting consistency rather than contradiction in the judicial record.
Left argues
Hellerstein's finding that Trump was seeking a 'second bite at the apple' highlights a procedural principle courts have long enforced: litigants cannot test their arguments in one forum, lose, and then belatedly seek a more favorable venue, which the law disfavors regardless of who the defendant is.
Right counters
Trump's team would argue the delay was reasonable because the Supreme Court's immunity decision itself came down only in 2024, after the state trial had already concluded, meaning he couldn't have raised these specific immunity arguments any earlier.
Right argues
Trump's team frames the prosecution itself as politically motivated, arguing that a locally elected Manhattan DA pursuing novel legal theories against a leading political opponent during an election cycle raises legitimate concerns about selective and targeted enforcement.
Left counters
A unanimous 12-person jury—not the DA alone—evaluated the evidence and convicted on all 34 counts, and multiple judges across state and federal courts have independently upheld the legal basis for the case, undermining the claim that this was simply a partisan vendetta rather than a legally sound prosecution.
Left argues
The repeated, unanimous rejection of Trump's immunity theory by three different federal judges underscores that presidential immunity has real limits and does not function as a blanket shield against accountability for personal conduct unrelated to governance.
Right counters
Trump's team contends that the repeated rejections don't necessarily prove the theory is meritless, but rather that lower courts may be resistant to fully applying a very recent and still-developing Supreme Court immunity framework, which is precisely why continued appeal is warranted.
Challenge Questions
These questions target genuine internal contradictions — meant to provoke honest reflection.
Right asks Left
“If the strength of the case rests on the jury's unanimous verdict and multiple judicial rejections of immunity claims, how does the left reconcile that confidence with the fact that the underlying charges relied on a novel legal theory elevating a misdemeanor business-records case to a felony via a disputed federal law connection?”
Left asks Right
“If Trump's team believes the Second Circuit ruling proves his removal argument has merit, why has that same argument now failed three separate times before federal judges, and what specific legal distinction justifies continuing to relitigate rather than accepting the consistent outcome?”
Outlier Report
Left Fringe
Figures like Marc Elias and some MSNBC commentators (e.g., Lawrence O'Donnell) who argue Trump should face immediate incarceration or harsher consequences represent a small fringe (~10-15% of the left) pushing for maximal accountability beyond mainstream Democratic messaging.
Right Fringe
Figures like Mike Davis and some pro-Trump commentators on outlets like Newsmax who characterize the entire judiciary handling Trump's cases as irredeemably corrupt and call for defiance of court rulings represent a fringe (~15-20% of the right) beyond mainstream Republican skepticism of the prosecution.
Noise Assessment
High noise ratio on social media, with engagement-driven amplification of extreme framings ('witch hunt' vs. 'lawless felon') far exceeding the more measured views most Americans hold about a procedural legal ruling they likely haven't followed closely.
Sources (5)
<p>A federal judge again <a href="https://www.axios.com/2025/10/28/trump-hush-money-conviction-appeal" target="_blank">declined</a> to erase President <a href="https://www.axios.com/politics-policy/donald-trump" target="_blank">Trump</a>'s hush money conviction on Friday, noting that the president's arguments were "neither new nor legally sufficient."</p><p><strong>Why it matters:</strong> The loss is another blow to the president, who has sought to get the conviction of <a href="https://www.axios.com/2024/05/30/trump-guilty-new-york-criminal-trial" target="_blank">34 felony counts</a> for falsifying business records thrown out after the Supreme Court ruled presidents have <a href="https://www.axios.com/2024/07/01/trump-supreme-court-immunity-decision" target="_blank">immunity</a> for "official acts."</p><hr /><p><strong>What they're saying: </strong>"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," Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein wrote in a 35-page <a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.598311/gov.uscourts.nysd.598311.93.0_1.pdf" target="_blank">filing</a> published Friday.</p><p><strong>Catch up quick:</strong> Trump was convicted in May 2024 on all counts of falsifying business records, making him the first U.S. president to become a convicted felon.</p><ul><li>The jury found that Trump falsified business records to conceal a $130,000 payment his then-fixer <a href="https://www.axios.com/2026/08/23/trump-michael-cohen-radio-interview" target="_blank">Michael Cohen</a> made to Daniels days before the 2016 election to keep her quiet about an alleged sexual encounter with Trump.</li></ul><p><strong>Zoom in: </strong>Trump sought to move the state case to federal court following a 2025 Supreme Court ruling that allowed former presidents immunity for certain acts done in their constitutional scope of office.</p><ul><li>The judge ruled that Trump delayed seeking federal review while testing his immunity arguments in state court, putting his request outside the typical deadlines for removing a criminal case to federal court.</li><li>"Trump seeks a 'second bite at the apple,' a result the law disfavors," Hellerstein wrote. </li></ul><p><strong>Zoom out: </strong>Hellerstein<strong> </strong>also determined that SCOTUS' immunity ruling didn't protect the president from the state's case. Nor did testimony given during the trial by former White House Press Secretary Hope Hicks, staffer Madeleine Westerhout, or Cohen violate his immunity.</p><ul><li>"[A]n affair, or a cover-up of an affair, is not within the 'outer perimeter'<strong> </strong>of the President's official responsibilities." Hellerstein wrote. </li></ul><p><strong>What they're saying: </strong>"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 President Trump's Legal Team told Axios in an emailed statement.</p><ul><li>"President Trump has already prevailed in this case at the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, and today's baseless and lawless decision contradicts that correct ruling. President Trump will be filing a powerful appeal, and will continue defeating Democrat weaponization at every turn."</li></ul><p><strong>Go deeper:</strong> <a href="https://www.axios.com/2025/10/28/trump-hush-money-conviction-appeal" target="_blank">Trump appeals felony conviction citing Supreme Court immunity</a></p><p><em>Editor's note: This story has been updated with additional information throughout. </em></p>
U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein ruled that Trump's arguments for removing the case were “neither new nor legally sufficient,” rejecting his claim that presidential immunity protected the conduct underlying the conviction.
Democratic officials ignore how they contributed to the situation in the Middle East. <img src="https://i0.wp.com/www.nationalreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/iran1.jpg?fit=617%2C360&ssl=1" />
A federal judge on Friday rejected President Trump’s latest bid to fight his criminal conviction outside of New York’s state courts, a strategy aimed at citing presidential immunity, under which Trump could potentially toss charges that stem from a 2016 hush money payment in the trash can.  U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein has denied Trump’s attempts to move to federal court three…
The court rejected Trump’s third attempt to move the case to federal court, where the president believes he would benefit from broader protection from prosecution.