A federal judge denied the former president’s eleventh hour request to transfer the case out of state court. His attorneys began the appeals process Tuesday night.
A federal judge on Tuesday denied former President Donald Trump’s second and last ditch bid to transfer his New York hush money case to federal court.
U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein of the Southern District of New York found that there was no good cause to grant Trump’s lawyers permission to even file a motion. Trump’s attorneys filed a notice of appeal late Tuesday evening.
The judge’s order said that in arguing “good cause” to move the case, Trump primarily argued that the state judge presiding over the criminal case, Juan Merchan, is biased against him and that the U.S. Supreme Court’s immunity ruling from July presents a valid federal defense for the hush money case.
Hellerstein rejected both arguments, finding first that a state court judge’s alleged bias does not present a federal question that would justify jurisdiction in a federal court, and was an issue for a state appeals court to decide.
Trump’s attorneys also argued the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity in a separate Trump criminal case should result in the charges him being dismissed because prosecutors used some evidence of Trump’s “official acts” as a part of their case.
Hellerstein said he was standing by his July 2023 conclusion — following briefing and an evidentiary hearing — that removal of the case was not warranted because the case was centered on Trump’s personal actions.
“I held in my Order and Opinion of July 19, 2023 that ‘hush money paid to an adult film star is not related to a President’s official acts,'” Hellerstein wrote. “Nothing in the Supreme Court’s opinion affects my previous conclusion that the hush money payments were private, unofficial acts, outside the bounds of executive authority.”
The judge’s decision comes after prosecutors in New York urged Merchan not to allow Trump’s eleventh-hour effort to move the case to federal court to prevent him from ruling on pending motions in the historic state criminal case.
Trump had asked Merchan to set aside the jury’s verdict because it allegedly relied on evidence of Trump’s “official,” and therefore immune, conduct, but also has requested that Merchan delay his sentencing until after the November election. Both motions are still pending.
“Federal law is clear that proceedings in this Court need not be stayed pending the district court’s resolution of defendant’s removal notice,” the DA’s letter said. It also added that “the concerns defendant expresses about timing are a function of his own strategic and dilatory litigation tactics: This second notice of removal comes nearly ten months after defendant voluntarily abandoned his appeal from his first, unsuccessful effort to remove this case; three months after he was found guilty by a jury on thirty-four felony counts; and nearly two months after defendant asked this Court to consider his CPL § 330.30 motion for a new trial.”
The DA’s office opposes Trump’s efforts to overturn the verdict and contends the impact of the “official acts” that were referred to in the case were negligible.
Merchan is expected to rule on that matter Sept. 16 — two days before Trump’s sentencing.
Prosecutors have also said they would defer to the judge on pushing back the Sept. 18 date in order to give Trump “adequate time” to try an appeal, but also urged him to pronounce sentence “without unreasonable delay.”
