President Trump is making waves again, this time in a federal appeals court as he fights to move his hush money conviction from New York state courts to a federal arena.
The Hill reported that a three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit heard arguments on Wednesday about whether Trump can leverage a recent Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity to challenge his conviction on 34 counts of falsifying business records in a federal forum.
This saga started long before Wednesday’s hearing, when Trump was first convicted on those 34 felony counts in a New York state court for reimbursements tied to a hush money payment made before his presidency.
Initially, Trump tried to shift the case to federal court, but a federal judge shot that down, ruling the case wasn’t sufficiently tied to his presidential duties.
Undeterred, Trump is back with a second attempt, arguing that the Supreme Court’s landmark decision on immunity for former presidents—handed down after his conviction—gives him “good cause” to reopen the issue.
His legal team isn’t claiming immunity from the charges themselves but insists that prosecutors improperly used potentially protected evidence, like testimony from a White House aide and social media posts, during the trial.
The appeals panel isn’t tasked with deciding the full scope of immunity right now; they only need to determine if Trump has a “colorable” or plausible defense to justify moving the case.
Yet, as Judge Myrna Pérez noted, “It seems to me that we got a very big case that created a whole new world of presidential immunity.” She’s right—navigating these uncharted waters is like trying to solve a puzzle with half the pieces missing.
Meanwhile, Jeffrey Wall, arguing for Trump, emphasized, “The point of federal officer removal is that they’re entitled to a federal forum.” If that’s good enough for the average bureaucrat, shouldn’t it apply to a former president facing what Wall called a “one-of-a-kind prosecution”?
On the flip side, Steven Wu from the Manhattan DA’s office pointed out Trump’s delay, arguing he waited two months after the immunity ruling to push this federal move.
Wu didn’t mince words, stating, “It is worse, not better, for questions of resolving disputes between federal and state courts that they first went to the state court fully briefed.” Translation: Trump’s playing a game of legal hopscotch, and the DA isn’t buying it.
Even the judges seemed to wrestle with the uniqueness of this mess, with Judge Raymond Lohier asking if everyone agreed this was a “highly unusual case.” No kidding—when has a case like this ever popped up in American history?
Adding fuel to Trump’s fire, his Justice Department filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting this latest bid now that he’s back in the White House.
Still, the panel’s stance remains murky after the oral arguments, with no clear sign they think Trump meets even the lower “plausible defense” threshold to shift jurisdictions.
All three judges acknowledged the case’s oddity, and with Trump needing to prove the prosecution's ties to an act under the color of his presidency, this legal battle is far from over.
If nothing else, it’s a reminder that in politics and law, the unexpected is the only thing you can expect.