Trump suffers new legal setback as judge rejects bid to fight hush money conviction

Donald Trump has suffered another setback in his attempt to move his New York hush money criminal case into federal court.

A federal judge has rejected the president’s latest effort, saying the arguments he put forward did not provide a legally sufficient reason to move the case.

The decision could make it harder for Trump to use the federal courts to challenge his New York conviction, although his wider legal efforts over the case are still ongoing.

The ruling was issued Friday by US District Judge Alvin Hellerstein, who has previously refused Trump’s request to transfer the case from New York state court.

According to the ruling, Hellerstein said the grounds cited by Trump were 'neither new nor legally sufficient.'

The decision follows an unusual turn in the case after a federal appeals court last fall ordered Hellerstein to take another look at Trump's request.

The 'hush money' case centers on a $130,000 payment made to adult film star Stormy Daniels. (Photo by Gotham/GC Images)

Why was Trump convicted in the hush money case?

The criminal case was brought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and centered on a $130,000 payment made to adult film star Stormy Daniels.

Daniels had claimed she had a sexual encounter with Trump, an allegation Trump has denied.

The payment was made before the 2016 presidential election, when the allegation could potentially have caused significant problems for his campaign.

Jurors ultimately convicted Trump, who was a Republican, on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records.

Trump has continued trying to have that conviction overturned, including by arguing that the case should be heard in federal rather than state court.

His latest attempt comes after the Supreme Court issued its landmark presidential immunity ruling in July 2024.

How could presidential immunity affect Trump’s conviction?

The Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. United States that presidents have immunity from prosecution for official acts.

Trump has argued that the ruling should affect his New York case because jurors heard evidence connected to his time in the White House, including testimony from former White House communications director Hope Hicks.

The Supreme Court's decision also said prosecutors cannot use evidence of a president's official acts in a criminal case involving private conduct.

That argument prompted the 2nd Circuit to send Trump's federal-court request back to Hellerstein for another review.

Hellerstein had already rejected Trump's attempts to transfer the case, agreeing with Bragg that the conduct at the center of the prosecution involved private behavior rather than presidential duties.

The appeals court nevertheless directed him to examine whether the disputed evidence "relates to acts taken under color of the Presidency."

After reviewing the matter again, Hellerstein has now rejected Trump's latest bid.

The judge said Trump had also failed to show 'good cause and diligence' for the new attempt to remove the case to federal court.

The conviction itself remains on the books. Trump was sentenced in January 2025 to an unconditional discharge, meaning he received no jail time or fine.

The hush money prosecution was the only one of the four criminal cases Trump faced that went to trial.

Trump has also asked a New York state appeals court to overturn the conviction.