President Trump’s legal team takes a bold stand against his politically motivated conviction, leveraging a Supreme Court ruling to move the case to federal court where presidential immunity could erase all charges.
Key Takeaways
- President Trump’s legal team is fighting to move his hush money conviction from state to federal court based on the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on presidential immunity.
- Trump was convicted on 34 counts of business fraud related to payments made during his presidency, which his lawyers argue were tied to official presidential duties.
- Despite receiving no jail time, probation, or fines, Trump remains a convicted felon under state law until this appeal succeeds.
- The Department of Justice supports Trump’s effort, while Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg opposes it, claiming the request comes too late.
- A successful appeal could not only overturn Trump’s conviction but establish important precedents on presidential immunity.
Presidential Immunity at the Center of Trump’s Appeal
President Donald Trump’s legal team presented oral arguments on June 11, 2025, before a three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, seeking to move his New York state conviction to federal court. The appeal leverages a landmark Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity that was issued after Trump’s conviction. This pivotal legal maneuver could potentially invalidate the entire case against the President, which many conservatives have long viewed as a politically motivated prosecution designed to damage Trump’s reputation and presidency.
Trump’s attorneys argue that the conviction relating to the Stormy Daniels hush money payment was intrinsically connected to his official duties as President. They contend that under the Supreme Court’s expanded definition of presidential immunity, evidence and testimony used in the state trial would have been inadmissible had the case been properly tried in federal court. The timing of the Supreme Court ruling, which came after Trump’s conviction, provides what his team calls “good cause” for post-trial removal to federal jurisdiction.
JUST PUBLISHED: Trump Appeals Bogus 'Hush Money' Conviction. PULSE POINTS:
❓What Happened: President Donald J. Trump’s attorneys are appealing his conviction in a so-called hush money case in New York, seeking to move it to federal court following last year's U.S. Supreme Court…— The National Pulse (@TheNatPulse) June 11, 2025
Legal Arguments and Constitutional Implications
Trump’s attorney Jeff Wall made a compelling case before the court, emphasizing the unprecedented nature of this prosecution against a sitting president. “The federal officer is entitled to a federal forum, not to have those arguments heard in state court. And if that’s true for a normal federal officer in a normal criminal prosecution, it certainly ought to be true for the president of the United States and for what we can all recognize is an anomalous, one-of-its kind prosecution,” argued Jeff Wall, Trump’s attorney.
Wall further highlighted the impact of the Supreme Court’s recent decision: “There was evidence that came in a trial that triggered an immunity that the Supreme Court recognized after trial. If an intervening decision of the Supreme Court says that a case is of the kind that should come into federal court, of course you trigger the removal statute,” explained Jeff Wall, Trump’s attorney.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office continues to oppose Trump’s efforts, with prosecutor Steven Wu arguing: “It is not to divert a state criminal proceeding into a federal court for direct appellate review. That offends fundamental principles of respect for state sovereignty over the criminal process,” claimed Steven Wu, representing the Manhattan DA’s office.
The Political Context and Future Implications
The panel hearing Trump’s appeal consists of judges appointed by Democratic presidents Obama and Biden, raising concerns among conservatives about potential political bias in the decision-making process. Despite these concerns, legal experts note that the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on presidential immunity provides strong grounds for Trump’s appeal. The Department of Justice has taken the unusual step of supporting Trump’s effort to move the case to federal court, recognizing the significant constitutional issues at stake regarding presidential powers and immunities.
Trump received an unconditional discharge following his conviction, meaning he faces no jail time, probation, or fines. However, he remains a convicted felon under state law until his appeal succeeds. Beyond Trump’s individual case, this appeal has far-reaching implications for the presidency itself, potentially establishing new legal precedents on the scope of presidential immunity and the relationship between federal and state jurisdictions in cases involving presidential actions.
The court is expected to issue a ruling in the coming weeks, with Trump’s team also pursuing a separate appeal of the conviction itself, with arguments due by late July. For millions of Trump supporters who view this prosecution as part of a larger pattern of lawfare against conservative leaders, this case represents not just a legal battle for one man, but a fight to preserve the proper constitutional role of the presidency against politically motivated prosecutions.
