Photo: Al Drago / Getty Images News / Getty Images
A federal judge in Manhattan appeared unlikely to grant President Donald Trump's request to move his 2024 hush money conviction from state to federal court during a contentious hearing Wednesday.
U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein, a Clinton appointee, repeatedly challenged Trump's attorney Jeffrey Wall during the three-hour proceeding, suggesting the former and current president's legal team had made a strategic error by waiting too long to seek federal court intervention.
"You made your choice and sought two bites of the apple; you should have gone to federal court first," Hellerstein told Wall, according to NBC News.
The case stems from Trump's May 2024 conviction on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to conceal a $130,000 payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election. Trump was sentenced to unconditional discharge in January 2025, just days before his second inauguration, meaning the conviction stands but without additional penalties.
Trump's legal team argues the case should move to federal court where they could seek to have the conviction thrown out based on the Supreme Court's July 2024 ruling that presidents have broad immunity from prosecution for official acts. This marks Trump's third attempt to move the case to federal jurisdiction.
Wall contended that Trump's previous attorneys made a reasonable decision to first seek relief from state court Judge Juan Merchan after the Supreme Court's immunity ruling before approaching federal court. "I think that's what any reasonable lawyer would have counseled their client," Wall argued.
"Not so," Hellerstein responded sharply, suggesting Trump's team waited too long—59 days after the Supreme Court decision—to bring the matter to federal court.
Steven Wu, representing Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, reinforced this point, arguing that Trump "cannot go to state court and when you are unhappy with that result go to federal court."
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals had ordered Hellerstein to reconsider his earlier decision to keep the case in state court, instructing him to examine whether evidence at trial related to immunized official acts. However, the appeals court expressed no opinion on how he should ultimately rule.
Trump's defense has specifically pointed to testimony from Hope Hicks, a former White House aide, as potentially involving official presidential acts that should be protected by immunity. State court Judge Merchan previously ruled that Hicks' testimony had nothing to do with Trump's "official acts" as president.
President Trump did not attend Wednesday's hearing. Judge Hellerstein promised to issue his decision soon, concluding that the arguments were "provocative."
Photo Credit: Getty Images