NEW YORK — Donald Trump’s lawyers were back in court Wednesday to renew their push to dismiss the New York jury verdict that makes him the only person convicted of a felony to serve as president.

Trump was convicted last year in Manhattan state court of 34 counts of falsifying business records to cover up hush money payments to an adult film star. His lawyers argued to judges on the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals that the state case should be transferred to federal court.

“He wants to go to federal court because he thinks he’ll have a more favorable result, and it’ll be faster to get to the Supreme Court with the issue of immunity,” Laurie Levenson, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, said in an interview.

Trump’s legal team is prioritizing the federal appeal as the quickest route to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has already given presidents broad immunity from prosecution. An appeal in state court may not start until later this year and could take months, if not years, to work its way to the justices in Washington.

Overturning the verdict would be a major symbolic victory for Trump, who contends he was the victim of a witch hunt by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. Trump was sentenced in January to an “unconditional discharge,” meaning he faced no real penalty other than having the conviction remain on his record.

During oral arguments which lasted more than 80 minutes Wednesday, the panel of appeals court judges questioned both sides closely about why the federal courts should intervene and take Trump’s challenge out of the state court’s hands.

Trump’s legal path is not easy. U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein ruled twice — before and after the Supreme Court ruling — that his case could not be transferred from state to federal court, saying his case didn’t meet the standard for a so-called removal. He also said hush money payments were not related to a president’s official responsibilities.

Stormy Daniels

In court filings, Trump’s lawyers have argued that the jury should never have heard about some events that took place in 2017, during Trump’s first term in the White House when he wrote checks and had conversations with aides related to the payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels.

Whether those actions and discussions constituted official acts are at the heart of the Trump appeal. The Supreme Court ruled presidents enjoy sweeping immunity for acts that include their core duties. They said any prosecution relating to an official act can’t intrude on the authority of the executive branch, and prosecutors can’t use official acts as evidence.

Jeffrey Wall, a lawyer for Trump, called the Supreme Court ruling a “watershed decision” and argued that “constitutional immunity” was the main issue that should be considered by federal, rather than state, judges.

“This is, after all, an unusual appeal by the President of the United States in a first-ever criminal case,” said Wall, the former principal deputy Solicitor General during Trump’s first term. “I do think we ought to get on with it.”

Postman

But Steven Wu, a lawyer for prosecutors, said that the evidence related to Trump’s discussions about the hush money payments, which he argued don’t constitute the “official acts” of a president. He compared the president to a postal worker who commits a robbery on the way to work and then confesses to his boss, while they were both in uniform.

“Introducing his workplace confession at the trial doesn’t make the prosecution for an act ‘under color of his federal office,’” Wu said.

Trump’s strategy has long been to get the case in front of the Supreme Court, which his team feels has already ruled in his favor.

“That’s clearly what he’s trying to do, but the question is whether they’re going to let him do it,” said Gregory Germain, a professor at Syracuse University College of Law. “He wants to get it out of the state system, that’s his goal.”

Justice Department

Trump’s lawyers at the Manhattan trial — Todd Blanche and Emil Bove — are now top officials in the Justice Department. His new lawyers said in a court filing that “significant categories” of evidence used at trial “clearly fell on the official-act side of the line.”

But Hellerstein and the state judge at Trump’s trial, Juan Merchan, both said the case centered on private actions. Merchan said there was “overwhelming evidence of guilt” against Trump and also rejected arguments that the Supreme Court decision took the case out of his hands.

The hush money case was filed in 2023, when Trump faced multiple criminal indictments in state and federal courts. But following his election last year, the Justice Department dropped two federal cases and state charges in Georgia were placed in jeopardy after the lead prosecutor was removed.

_____

©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Visit bloomberg.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.