Federal Judge Denies Trump's Third Bid to Move New York Hush-Money Conviction to Federal Court; Trump Files Notice of Appeal
U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein ruled on August 28, 2026 that Trump's renewed removal request was untimely and legally insufficient; Trump's lawyers filed a notice of appeal to the Second Circuit the same afternoon.
A Third Loss, and a Fourth Try
Donald Trump has now asked three times to move his New York hush-money case out of state court and into federal court. Three times, the same judge has said no. On Friday, August 28, 2026, U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein issued a 35-page ruling rejecting the latest attempt, and by that afternoon Trump's lawyers had already filed a notice of appeal to the Second Circuit[1][3].
The case itself is old news by now. A Manhattan jury convicted Trump in May 2024 on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records, tied to a $130,000 payment Michael Cohen made to adult film actor Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election[2][9]. Trump was sentenced in January 2025 — an unconditional discharge, meaning no jail, no fine, no probation — just days before he was sworn in for a second term[1][5]. So the punishment was already as light as it gets. What's still being fought over is something else: whether the word "convicted" stays attached to his name at all, and which court gets to decide that.
The Question Underneath the Question
To understand why this keeps coming back, you need to know what "removal" means. Federal law, 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), lets a federal officer take a state case against him into federal court when the conduct charged was tied to his official duties[9]. Trump's team argues that matters here because federal court is where a claim of presidential immunity belongs. In 2024, the Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. United States that presidents have immunity for official acts, and Trump's lawyers say some of the evidence used to convict him touched on his time in office[9].
Manhattan prosecutors reject that framing entirely. Their argument is that the hush-money payoff and the cover-up were personal conduct, arranged before Trump even took office, with nothing to do with running the executive branch[5][9]. And they've raised a second point that turned out to matter more: timing. Trump first tried removal in 2023 and lost. He didn't try again until after he had already been convicted, sentenced, and lost in state court — which the DA's lawyer, Steven Wu, summed up bluntly: "You cannot go to state court and when you are unhappy with that result go to federal court"[1].
That timing question is what actually decided Friday's ruling. A defendant seeking to remove a case late has to show "good cause" under 28 U.S.C. § 1455(b)[9]. Hellerstein found Trump hadn't shown it. He wrote that Trump's reasons were "neither new nor legally sufficient" and that Trump "failed to show good cause and diligence"[2][3]. In a line that captured his reasoning, Hellerstein wrote that Trump "cannot play one court against another; he cannot seek victory in one court, and then, when it becomes apparent that the court will rule against him, seek to remove his case to another court"[3].
Why This Isn't Actually Over
If the ruling turned on a narrow procedural point, why does Trump's team think a fourth round with the Second Circuit is worth it? Because that same appeals court already intervened once before. In November 2025, a Second Circuit panel sent this exact question back to Hellerstein, saying it couldn't confirm he had adequately weighed the "good cause" issue the first time around[9][10]. To Trump's lawyers, that's a sign the question is genuinely open, not settled.
Their strongest argument is structural. Under the Constitution's Supremacy Clause, they say, a state prosecutor shouldn't be able to try a sitting or former president using evidence connected to his official conduct — that's exactly why the federal removal statute exists[9]. They also argue the legal ground shifted under the case after the 2024 verdict: the Supreme Court's immunity ruling came down after the jury spoke but before sentencing, so asking again wasn't gamesmanship, it was the first real chance to raise an argument that didn't exist yet in that form[9]. In their own words, delivered the day of the ruling, the case is a "Witch Hunt" that must be "removed to federal court, and immediately overturned and dismissed," and the ruling itself is "baseless and lawless"[6][7].
Hellerstein didn't stop at the procedural question, either. He went further and addressed the immunity argument on its merits, writing that "paying hush money to an adult film star or engaging in a cover-up of an embarrassment are not subsumed in presidential immunity"[4][5]. That line wasn't strictly necessary to decide the case — the timing issue alone was enough — but it's the sentence that traveled furthest in the coverage that followed.
One Ruling, Two Very Different Front Pages
That gap between what the ruling actually decided and what got emphasized shows up clearly across the news coverage. Right-leaning outlets like the Washington Examiner led with Trump's vow to file a "powerful appeal" and his team's charge of "Democrat weaponization," putting his response ahead of the loss itself[6][7]. Several also noted early that Hellerstein was appointed by President Bill Clinton — accurate, but a detail that nudges readers toward reading a timing-based ruling as partisan[7].
Center-left and mainstream outlets went the other direction, leading with the loss and its repetition — "loses again," "third time," "longshot" — and foregrounding Hellerstein's line about hush money not being an official act[4][12]. CNN's headline led entirely with the Stormy Daniels merits line rather than the timeliness holding the ruling mainly rested on, which makes the decision read as a sweeping rejection of Trump's immunity theory rather than a narrower procedural denial[4]. Al Jazeera, writing for a global audience, kept things more contextual, describing a straightforward court outcome without much engagement in the domestic partisan framing[5]. The most precise account came from Reason's legal blog, which zeroed in on exactly what the ruling decided: that Trump's request came too late — leaving the bigger immunity question technically unresolved[8].
What Actually Changes Next
Nothing about Trump's liberty or finances is at stake in this fight — the sentence was already as light as a felony conviction can be[1][5]. What's at stake is the conviction's legal status, and a precedent about how much power state prosecutors have over federal officials. That's now in the hands of the Second Circuit, the same appeals court that already found Hellerstein's earlier reasoning lacking once before[6][10]. No date has been set for that ruling.
Meanwhile, a separate fight continues on its own track: Trump is also appealing his conviction directly through New York's state appellate courts[1]. Even if the Second Circuit shuts the door on removal for good, that state appeal keeps running independently. The Manhattan DA's office, for its part, has said little publicly since the ruling came down, letting the decision speak for itself[1].
Summary
On Friday, August 28, 2026, U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein again refused to move Donald Trump's New York state hush-money case into federal court[1][2]. It was the third time Hellerstein has denied such a request[1][4]. In a 35-page decision, he wrote that Trump's reasons for renewing the request were "neither new nor legally sufficient," and that Trump "has failed to show good cause and diligence"[2][3]. Trump's lawyers filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit later that same afternoon[1][6].
The fight is over a legal move called "removal." A federal law, 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), lets a federal officer take a state case against him into federal court when the conduct charged was tied to his federal duties[9]. Trump's side says that matters because federal court is where a president's immunity claim belongs. The Supreme Court held in 2024 that a president has immunity for official acts, and Trump argues some of the evidence used against him came from his time in office[9]. Manhattan prosecutors say the conduct here was personal, not official, and that Trump chose to fight in state court first and cannot switch after losing[1][3].
There is a second, narrower dispute that decided this ruling: timing. A defendant who wants to remove a criminal case late must show "good cause" under 28 U.S.C. § 1455(b)[9]. Trump was convicted in May 2024 before he asked again[3]. Hellerstein found the request came too late and that removal is not available after a conviction and sentence[3]. He also wrote that "[p]aying hush money to an adult film star or engaging in a cover-up of an embarrassment are not subsumed in presidential immunity"[4][5]. Trump's team calls the ruling "baseless and lawless" and says he will appeal[6][7].
The practical stakes are limited in one sense and large in another. Trump's sentence was an unconditional discharge — a conviction with no jail, fine, or probation — imposed in January 2025, days before his second inauguration[1][5]. So no punishment hangs on this. What hangs on it is the conviction itself, and which court system gets to decide whether presidential immunity wipes it out. Trump is also appealing the conviction separately in the New York state appeals courts[1].
The Event
On Friday, August 28, 2026, U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein of the Southern District of New York issued a 35-page ruling denying Donald Trump's renewed request to move his New York state hush-money criminal case to federal court[1][3]. Hellerstein wrote that the grounds Trump offered were "neither new nor legally sufficient" and that Trump "failed to show good cause and diligence"[2][3]. It was the third time Hellerstein has denied a removal request in the case[1][4]. Trump's lawyers filed a notice of appeal to the Second Circuit that afternoon[1][6].
Undisputed Facts
- A Manhattan grand jury indicted Trump in March 2023 on 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree[9].
- The charges stemmed from a $130,000 payment made by Michael Cohen to adult film actor Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election; prosecutors said Trump directed it[2][9].
- A New York state jury convicted Trump on all 34 counts in May 2024[2][3].
- Trump was sentenced in January 2025 to an unconditional discharge — no jail, fine, or probation — shortly before being sworn in for a second, nonconsecutive term[1][5].
- Trump first sought removal under the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), in 2023, and Hellerstein denied it[9].
- The U.S. Supreme Court decided Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593 (2024), holding that presidents have immunity for official acts, after the verdict but before sentencing[9].
- In November 2025, a Second Circuit panel sent the post-verdict removal question back to Hellerstein, saying it could not confirm he had adequately considered issues relevant to the "good cause" inquiry[9][10].
- Trump has a separate appeal of the conviction pending in the New York state appellate courts[1].
- Hellerstein's August 28, 2026 ruling denied removal, and Trump filed a notice of appeal to the Second Circuit the same day[1][6].
The Pressure
Strip away the moralizing and blame. What structural realities persist regardless of which narrative wins?
- No sentence, only a label
- Trump's punishment was an unconditional discharge — a conviction entered with no jail, fine, or probation[1][5]. Nothing about his liberty or finances turns on this litigation. What turns on it is whether the word "convicted" stays attached to his name, and whether a precedent limiting state power over presidents gets made.
- Procedure decides, merits get quoted
- The ruling rests mainly on timing and diligence under the late-removal statute, not on a final answer to the immunity question[3][9]. Both camps prefer to talk about immunity because it is the argument each thinks it wins — which is why the merits sentence about Stormy Daniels travels further than the holding does.
- The appellate court has already intervened once
- The Second Circuit sent this question back to Hellerstein in November 2025 for fuller reasoning[9][10]. That history is the single strongest reason Trump's side treats the new appeal as more than a formality, and the reason the story is not over.
- Two tracks running at once
- The state appeal of the conviction is proceeding separately in New York's appellate courts[1]. Even a total loss on removal does not end Trump's effort to vacate the conviction.
Material realityA New York jury convicted Trump on 34 felony counts in May 2024 and the sentence was an unconditional discharge in January 2025[2][5]. That conviction stands today. A federal district judge has now three times declined to take the case away from the state courts, most recently on August 28, 2026, on grounds that the request came too late and that removal is not available after conviction and sentencing[1][3]. A notice of appeal is filed and the Second Circuit — which already once faulted this judge's reasoning on the same question — will decide next[6][10]. No deadline has been reported for that ruling. Meanwhile the state appeal continues on its own track[1].
Narrative as a weaponTrump's legal team is the most active shaper here: its statement was issued the same day and supplies the words "baseless and lawless," "Witch Hunt," and "powerful appeal," which right-leaning outlets carried near the top[6][7]. It wants readers to see a partisan judge blocking a legitimate constitutional claim. Mainstream and center-left outlets want readers to see a third failure in a row and quote the judge's line about hush money not being an official act — a merits point the ruling did not have to reach[4][5]. The Manhattan DA's office is deliberately quiet, declining comment on the filing and letting the ruling speak[1]. The most careful description sits in specialist legal coverage: this was a decision about whether the request came too late, and the immunity question the loudest voices are arguing about has not been finally settled[8].
How Each Side Sees It
Each major actor’s view — how it frames things, its underlying incentive, and how it’s materially affected. Tap a side to read it.
Frames it asTheir strongest argument is structural, not personal. Under the Supremacy Clause, a state prosecutor should not be able to try a president using evidence of his official conduct, and the federal officer removal statute exists precisely so federal officials are not held hostage to hostile state courts[9]. They say the Supreme Court's 2024 immunity ruling changed the legal ground under the case after the verdict, so asking again was not gamesmanship — it was the first chance to raise a rule that did not yet exist in that form[9]. They also point out the Second Circuit itself found Hellerstein's earlier reasoning inadequate and sent it back in November 2025, which they read as a sign the question is live[10]. In their own words, the ruling is "baseless and lawless" and the prosecution is a "Witch Hunt" that must be "removed to federal court, and immediately overturned and dismissed"[6][7].
WhyErasing a felony conviction — the only one against a sitting U.S. president — and establishing a precedent that limits state prosecutors' reach over federal officeholders[1][6].
Impact on themNo sentence is at risk, since the punishment was an unconditional discharge[1][5]. What is at risk is the legal record itself and the political weight of the word "convicted," plus the immunity precedent that would shield future conduct.
Frames it asTheir case is about forum-shopping and finality. The conduct charged was a personal cover-up of a personal embarrassment, paid for by a private lawyer before Trump held office — nothing to do with running the executive branch[5][9]. Their procedural argument is blunt: Trump could have gone to federal court at the start, chose state court, lost, and only then wanted a different judge. As the DA's lawyer Steven Wu put it, "You cannot go to state court and when you are unhappy with that result go to federal court"[1]. Behind that is a federalism principle conservatives also invoke elsewhere: states run their own criminal courts, and a defendant does not get a second system after the jury has spoken.
WhyProtecting a jury verdict its office won, and defending the general power of state prosecutors to charge federal officials for private conduct[1].
Impact on themA reversal at the Second Circuit would move a completed state prosecution into federal court and could void the conviction[1][3]. The office declined to comment publicly on Trump's latest filing[1].
Frames it asThe court's stated position is narrow and procedural, and it is worth separating from the merits. Hellerstein held that removal after conviction and sentencing is not available, and that Trump did not show the "good cause" and diligence the late-removal statute requires[3]. He wrote that Trump "cannot play one court against another; he cannot seek victory in one court, and then, when it becomes apparent that the court will rule against him, seek to remove his case to another court"[3]. He separately rejected the immunity theory on its own terms, writing that hush money and a cover-up of an embarrassment "are not subsumed in presidential immunity"[4][5].
WhyAnswering the Second Circuit's November 2025 remand with reasoning detailed enough to survive review[9][10].
Impact on themThe ruling is now on appeal to the Second Circuit, the same court that previously found his reasoning insufficient[6][10]. Hellerstein, appointed by President Bill Clinton, is regularly identified that way in right-leaning coverage[7].
Frames it asAllies argue the case was a novel legal theory aimed at one man — a misdemeanor records charge elevated to 34 felonies — and that letting it stand invites elected local prosecutors to criminalize national politics[6][7]. Critics argue the opposite principle: a jury heard the evidence and convicted, and repeat attempts to relitigate the forum after the fact are delay, not law[11]. Both sides claim the same value — that courts should not be used as political weapons — and differ on who is doing the weaponizing.
WhyEach side wants the public to read federal court outcomes as confirming its account of whether the prosecution was legitimate[6][11].
Impact on themThe dispute shapes public understanding of Trump's criminal record heading into the 2026 midterms, and shapes how aggressively local prosecutors elsewhere pursue federal officeholders.
Like this article?
The Bias Ledger average rating 3.5
The same story, as framed by outlets across the spectrum, ordered least to most biased. The bias score (1 = straight, 10 = heavily spun) is an AI assessment of that framing — click an outlet to see its track record. The tell is the word choice or omission that reveals the angle.
| Outlet | Vantage | Bias | How they frame it | The tell |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CNBC | U.S. center (business) | 2 | "Trump loses bid to transfer New York hush money case to federal court" | Plain verb, no adjectives; includes the DA's forum-shopping quote and the notice of appeal. Frames as a docket event rather than a political defeat. |
| Al Jazeera | Qatari state-funded | 2 | "US judge rejects Trump's bid to switch hush-money case to federal court" | Neutral construction for a global audience; keeps the unconditional-discharge sentence and the Daniels denial in view. Little engagement with U.S. partisan framing, which flattens why the ruling matters domestically. |
| Reason (Opinion) | U.S. libertarian legal commentary (Volokh Conspiracy blog) | 2 | "Federal Judge Concludes Then-Candidate Trump's Attempt to Remove N.Y. Hush Money Non-Reporting Prosecution to Federal Court Came Too Late" | Focuses squarely on the timeliness holding — the narrowest and most accurate description of what the ruling decided. The framing implicitly signals the immunity merits remain unresolved. |
| The Hill | U.S. center | 3 | "Trump can't appeal New York conviction in federal court, judge rules again" | "Rules again" signals repetition and futility. The headline slightly overstates the holding — Trump can and did appeal, just to the Second Circuit rather than into a federal trial court. |
| CNN | U.S. center-left | 4 | "Federal judge says Trump discussing payoff to Stormy Daniels isn't an official presidential action" | Leads with the merits line about Stormy Daniels rather than the timeliness holding the ruling mainly rests on. That choice makes the decision read as a broad rebuke of the immunity claim and keeps the salacious facts up top. |
| Axios | U.S. center | 4 | "Trump loses longshot bid to erase hush money conviction" | "Longshot" is the outlet's own characterization of the legal odds, inserted into the headline without attribution to a named party. |
| The Washington Times | U.S. right | 5 | "Judge blocks Trump's bid to move hush money case to federal court" | Identifies Hellerstein as "a Clinton appointee" early, which is factually accurate but functions as a partisan cue about a ruling decided on timeliness grounds. |
| Washington Examiner | U.S. right | 6 | "Trump vows appeal after judge blocks federal transfer of hush money case" | Puts Trump's response in the subject position and the loss in a subordinate clause. "Blocks" casts the judge as an obstacle; the piece amplifies the "powerful appeal" and "Democrat weaponization" language. |
References
- Trump loses bid to transfer New York hush money case to federal court — CNBC · U.S. center; business news division of NBCUniversal/Comcast
- Federal judge rejects Trump's bid to move hush money criminal case, keeping it in New York state court — Associated Press · U.S. wire service; nonpartisan newsgathering cooperative, republished by PBS NewsHour
- Trump loses again in bid to erase his hush money conviction — Associated Press · U.S. wire service; nonpartisan newsgathering cooperative, republished by PBS NewsHour (byline: Michael R. Sisak, Jennifer Peltz)
- Federal judge says Trump discussing payoff to Stormy Daniels isn't an official presidential action — CNN · U.S. center-left; Warner Bros. Discovery
- US judge rejects Trump's bid to switch hush-money case to federal court — Al Jazeera · Qatari state-funded media network
- Trump vows appeal after judge blocks federal transfer of hush money case — Washington Examiner · U.S. right; owned by Clarity Media Group (Philip Anschutz)
- Judge blocks Trump's bid to move hush money case to federal court — The Washington Times · U.S. right; founded and long funded by the Unification Church movement
- Federal Judge Concludes Then-Candidate Trump's Attempt to Remove N.Y. Hush Money Non-Reporting Prosecution to Federal Court Came Too Late — Reason · U.S. libertarian; Volokh Conspiracy legal blog, Reason Foundation
- New York v. Trump, No. 24-2299-cv (2d Cir.) — opinion — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Primary source; federal appellate court record via CourtListener
- Second Circuit gives Trump another stab at bucking hush money conviction — Courthouse News Service · U.S. court-focused trade outlet; low editorial slant
- Trump tries a third time to move hush-money case to federal court in bid to get conviction tossed — NBC News · U.S. center-left; NBCUniversal/Comcast
- Trump loses longshot bid to erase hush money conviction — Axios · U.S. center; owned by Cox Enterprises