Federal Judge Rejects Trump's Third Bid to Transfer Hush-Money Case to Federal Court

What Happened

On Friday, August 28, 2026, U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein rejected former President Donald Trump's third attempt to transfer his New York state criminal hush-money case to federal court. This ruling came after the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had ordered Judge Hellerstein to reconsider his previous denial in light of a July 2024 Supreme Court decision concerning presidential immunity. Trump's legal team had argued that his conviction for 34 felony counts of falsifying business records, stemming from a $130,000 payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels, should be overturned under an expanded interpretation of presidential immunity. Judge Hellerstein, however, explicitly stated that "Paying hush money to an adult film star or engaging in a cover-up of an embarrassment are not subsumed in presidential immunity." Trump's lawyers immediately announced their intention to appeal this decision, labeling it "baseless and lawless."

The case centers on allegations that Trump, through his former fixer Michael Cohen, made a payment to Daniels before the 2016 presidential election to silence her claims of an affair. Prosecutors successfully argued in the New York state trial that falsifying business records, typically a misdemeanor, became a felony because it was done to unlawfully influence the 2016 election. Trump was convicted in May 2024 and subsequently sentenced to an unconditional discharge in January 2025, meaning no jail time or financial penalty, but the convictions remain on his record. This latest federal court bid was part of a broader strategy by Trump to overturn his conviction, citing the Supreme Court's 2024 ruling that expanded presumptive immunity for a president's "official acts."

What the Evidence Establishes

The evidence establishes that Judge Alvin Hellerstein has consistently rejected Donald Trump's arguments for transferring the hush-money case to federal jurisdiction, with the latest ruling marking the third such denial. Hellerstein's decision on August 28, 2026, directly addressed the Supreme Court's July 2024 ruling on presidential immunity, which broadened the scope of protection for actions considered "official acts." However, Hellerstein explicitly found that Trump's alleged actions related to the Stormy Daniels payment were not official acts. He wrote, "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. An affair, or a cover-up of an affair, is not within the ‘outer perimeter’ of the President’s official responsibilities."

Furthermore, Hellerstein's ruling indicated that Trump had waited too long after his May 2024 conviction and the Supreme Court's decision to seek removal of the case to federal court. He emphasized that federal district courts are not merely "certifying clerks" for appeals court orders, asserting his judicial independence in reconsidering the case. The judge also noted that Trump had not demonstrated that the Manhattan District Attorney's office prosecuted him for conduct related to his presidency, reinforcing the distinction between personal and official acts. This legal reasoning underscores a narrow interpretation of presidential immunity when applied to actions taken for personal electoral benefit rather than constitutional duties.

Where the Accounts Conflict

The primary conflict arises between Judge Hellerstein's legal interpretation and the assertions made by Donald Trump's legal team. Judge Hellerstein explicitly ruled that the alleged hush-money payments and their cover-up were not "official acts" and therefore not covered by presidential immunity, even if some actions occurred while Trump was in office. He stated, "An affair, or a cover-up of an affair, is not within the ‘outer perimeter’ of the President’s official responsibilities." Conversely, Trump's legal team maintains that the Supreme Court's "historic decision on Immunity" and other legal precedents mandate the case's removal to federal court and its immediate dismissal. They characterized Hellerstein's judgment as "baseless and lawless" and a continuation of "Democrat weaponization."

Another point of contention lies in the interpretation of the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals' November order. Trump's spokesman claimed, "President Trump has already prevailed in this case at the Second Circuit Court of Appeals," implying the appeals court had sided with them on the merits of the transfer. However, the appeals court merely ordered Hellerstein to *reconsider* the case in light of the Supreme Court's immunity decision, without instructing him on how to rule. Hellerstein directly addressed this, stating, "Federal district courts are not certifying clerks," thereby rejecting the implication that he was bound to simply certify the appeals court's perceived preference. This highlights a significant divergence in how the judicial process and prior rulings are being framed by the court versus Trump's legal representatives.

Context and Stakes

This ruling is significant as it represents another legal setback for Donald Trump, particularly in his ongoing efforts to challenge his 2024 felony conviction. The attempt to transfer the case to federal court was a strategic move, as federal jurisdiction might offer different legal avenues or a more favorable judicial environment for his immunity arguments. The rejection by Judge Hellerstein reinforces the state court's jurisdiction over the hush-money case and limits Trump's immediate options for overturning the conviction outside the state appeals process. The broader context includes Trump's other legal challenges, such as the civil judgments in favor of E. Jean Carroll, totaling over $89 million, and the dismissal of his $10 billion defamation lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal and Rupert Murdoch in April 2026.

The stakes are high for the principle of presidential immunity. The Supreme Court's July 2024 decision expanded the concept of "presumptive immunity" for "official acts," but Hellerstein's ruling provides a judicial interpretation that clearly delineates personal conduct, even if occurring during a presidency, from official duties. This distinction is crucial for defining the boundaries of presidential accountability. If Trump's argument had prevailed, it could have set a precedent for future presidents to claim immunity for a wider range of actions, potentially shielding them from state-level prosecutions for conduct deemed personal or electoral in nature. The ongoing appeals will continue to shape the legal understanding of presidential powers and limitations.

What to Watch Next

The immediate next step will be the formal filing of an appeal by Donald Trump's legal team with the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Trump's lawyers have already publicly stated their intention to file a "powerful appeal" following Judge Hellerstein's August 28, 2026, ruling. This appeal will likely re-assert arguments regarding presidential immunity and challenge Hellerstein's interpretation of the Supreme Court's 2024 decision and the applicability of federal jurisdiction. The 2nd Circuit will then review Hellerstein's latest decision, potentially setting a briefing schedule for both sides to present their arguments in detail.

Beyond the federal appeal, Trump is also separately appealing his conviction within the New York state appeals court system. These two parallel legal tracks mean that even if the federal appeal is unsuccessful, the state appeal process will continue. Observers should monitor the 2nd Circuit's response to Trump's appeal, specifically whether they uphold Hellerstein's interpretation of presidential immunity or if they find his reasoning flawed. Any decision from the 2nd Circuit could have significant implications for the scope of presidential immunity and the ability of state courts to prosecute former presidents for actions taken while in office. The timeline for these appellate processes can vary, but initial procedural steps, such as setting a briefing schedule, are typically established within weeks of an appeal being filed.

Bottom Line

Judge Alvin Hellerstein's August 28, 2026, decision to reject Donald Trump's third attempt to move his hush-money case to federal court reaffirms the state's jurisdiction and limits the application of presidential immunity to personal conduct. Hellerstein explicitly ruled that actions related to the Stormy Daniels payment and its alleged cover-up do not constitute "official acts" of the presidency, a critical distinction following the Supreme Court's 2024 expansion of presumptive immunity. This ruling underscores the judiciary's role in defining the boundaries of executive power and accountability, particularly when personal and official conduct intersect.

The immediate consequence is that Trump's legal team will now pursue an appeal to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, continuing a multi-pronged legal battle to overturn his 2024 felony conviction. This ongoing litigation highlights the persistent challenges to the legal system's capacity to adjudicate cases involving former high-ranking officials, especially concerning actions taken during their tenure. The outcome of these appeals will not only determine the finality of Trump's conviction but also contribute to the evolving legal framework surrounding presidential immunity and the separation of powers in the United States.