Federal Judge Questions Trump’s Timing in Hush Money Case Transfer Attempt
The Battle Over Jurisdiction Intensifies
In a significant legal development, a federal judge expressed serious doubts about former President Donald Trump’s effort to transfer his New York criminal conviction to federal court, suggesting that Trump’s legal team waited far too long to make such a move. During a hearing on Wednesday, the judge questioned the timing and appropriateness of the transfer request, which came months after the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark ruling on presidential immunity in 2024. Trump’s conviction on 34 felony counts related to falsifying business records in connection with hush money payments to adult film actress Stormy Daniels has become a complex legal chess match, with his attorneys seeking to navigate the case through the federal court system and ultimately before the Supreme Court. The hearing revealed the strategic calculations behind Trump’s legal maneuvering and highlighted the tension between state and federal jurisdiction in this unprecedented case involving a former and current president facing criminal charges.
Supreme Court Immunity Ruling Creates New Legal Arguments
At the heart of Trump’s latest legal strategy lies the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision granting presidents presumptive immunity for actions taken within their official duties while in office. Trump’s attorney, Jeff Wall, argued that the prosecution’s case against Trump fundamentally relied on evidence connected to Trump’s official acts as president, which should now be protected under the Supreme Court’s immunity doctrine. This evidence included conversations that took place in the Oval Office with then-White House communications director Hope Hicks, social media posts Trump made about his former attorney Michael Cohen, and testimony from Madeleine Westerhout, a former White House aide. Wall contended that while prosecutors weren’t required to introduce this evidence at trial, once they chose to do so, the entire prosecution became entangled with Trump’s official presidential acts, thereby triggering the immunity protections outlined by the Supreme Court. This argument represents a creative legal approach to potentially overturn a conviction that has already withstood initial scrutiny in state court, though it faces significant skepticism from the federal bench.
Judge Challenges the Official Acts Argument
Judge Hellerstein appeared unconvinced by the defense’s characterization of the evidence as relating to official presidential duties, pressing Trump’s attorneys on whether the communications introduced at trial genuinely had anything to do with the presidency or were simply personal matters that happened to be “embarrassing” for Trump. The judge noted pointedly that “the telling part of the evidence was the falsification of the records themselves that had nothing to do with any kind of White House directory or official records.” This observation strikes at the core weakness in Trump’s argument—that the criminal conduct involved falsifying business records at the Trump Organization to cover up hush money payments related to an alleged extramarital affair, actions that seem far removed from the constitutional duties of the presidency. Steven Wu, representing the Manhattan district attorney’s office, reinforced this point by arguing that the Supreme Court’s immunity opinion only affects the admissibility of certain evidence, not the underlying charges themselves, which he maintained had nothing to do with Trump’s official conduct as president. Wu emphasized that Trump’s legal team seemed to be operating under a misunderstanding that if any evidence of official acts is introduced at trial, it somehow transforms the entire criminal case into one involving official presidential actions, which he argued was simply not legally accurate.
The Timing Problem and Strategic Calculations
A major stumbling block for Trump’s legal team emerged around the timing of their federal court removal request, which came 58 days after the Supreme Court’s immunity decision—well beyond the customary 30-day period typically expected for such procedural moves. Judge Hellerstein directly confronted this issue, stating bluntly, “It seems that you’re waiting too long,” and questioning why Trump’s attorneys first sought relief from the state trial judge, Justice Juan Merchan, before attempting to move the case to federal court. Trump’s attorney Jeff Wall defended the approach as both reasonable and respectful, arguing that giving Judge Merchan the first opportunity to consider the immunity issue was what “any sensible litigant would do” to avoid showing “disrespect” to the trial judge. However, Judge Hellerstein appeared entirely unmoved by this justification, dismissing concerns about judicial courtesy as “totally irrelevant” and suggesting that Trump’s legal team had intended to litigate in state court and only sought federal jurisdiction when they sensed they would be disappointed by Judge Merchan’s ruling. This exchange revealed the strategic calculations underlying Trump’s legal maneuvering and the judge’s skepticism about whether those calculations satisfied the procedural requirements for transferring a case from state to federal court.
Questions About Appropriateness at This Advanced Stage
Beyond the timing issues, Judge Hellerstein raised fundamental questions about whether transferring the case to federal court made sense given how far the state court proceedings had already progressed. With a verdict already rendered, sentencing completed, and an appeal pending in the state court system, the judge questioned what role a federal district court judge could appropriately play at this stage. When he asked whether it was proper to move a case to federal court when there would be nothing for the federal judge to do other than certify what the state court had already done, Trump’s attorney Jeff Wall candidly conceded that there would indeed be nothing for Judge Hellerstein to do except adopt the state court judgment and send the case onward to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Wall framed this as a simple administrative matter, suggesting the judge “would be done with this in a day” before the case moved on to the appellate level. However, this argument appeared to backfire, as Judge Hellerstein responded that he could not in good conscience simply rubber-stamp the state court’s judgment as his own, stating: “The only thing you want me to do is adopt the New York Supreme Court judgment as mine. In conscience I can’t do that.” Prosecutors have argued that the “advanced stage” of the proceedings weighs heavily against allowing the transfer, as it would essentially allow Trump to restart litigation that has already concluded in state court.
The Broader Context and What Comes Next
Trump’s conviction on May 30, 2024, represented a historic moment as the first criminal conviction of a former U.S. president, with the jury finding him guilty of orchestrating an illegal scheme to influence the 2016 presidential election by directing his then-attorney Michael Cohen to pay $130,000 to Stormy Daniels to prevent her from publicly revealing a long-denied sexual encounter. Justice Merchan ultimately sentenced Trump to an unconditional discharge without prison time, fines, or probation, though the conviction itself carries significant political and legal implications. Trump’s legal strategy of seeking to move the case to federal court appears driven by the goal of getting the matter before the federal appellate system and ultimately the Supreme Court as quickly as possible, particularly since he cannot pardon himself from a state conviction. While a federal conviction could theoretically be pardoned by a sitting president, state convictions fall outside federal pardon power, making the distinction between state and federal jurisdiction particularly significant in Trump’s case. Trump is simultaneously pursuing a separate appeal through the New York state court system, suggesting a multi-pronged legal strategy aimed at overturning the conviction through whatever avenue might prove successful. Judge Hellerstein indicated he would not make a final decision during Wednesday’s hearing, leaving both sides to await his ruling on whether Trump’s attempt to federalize his state criminal conviction will succeed or whether the case will remain firmly within New York’s jurisdiction.
