Trump's Legal Limbo A Year Later, Still Fighting the Verdict!

A Year Later: Trump's Appeal of Historic Criminal Case Continues

One year after his conviction, former President Donald Trump's legal battle continues as his team appeals the historic criminal case. A U.S. court of appeals in Manhattan is set to hold a hearing Wednesday morning, marking the latest effort to overturn his conviction in the hush money case. The core argument remains that the case should be moved to federal court.

Notably, **President Trump is not expected to be present** at Wednesday's hearing.

Last year, Trump was found guilty in New York State Supreme Court on all 34 counts of falsifying business records. These charges stemmed from concealing a payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels in exchange for her silence regarding an alleged sexual encounter before the 2016 election. While facing multiple civil and criminal cases leading up to the election, this was the only criminal case to reach trial. **This conviction made Trump the first president in history to be a convicted felon.**

Trump received an unconditional discharge ten days before his second term began. This means that while the conviction remains on his record, he will not face fines, prison time, or other penalties. The judge stated that this was the only lawful sentence that would not encroach upon the office of the president. However, Trump voiced his displeasure via video at his sentencing, claiming he was treated unfairly and vowing to appeal.

Legal experts suggest that this particular appeal, based on an older law, faces an uphill battle.

Jed Shugerman, a law professor at Boston University, commented, "Trump is exhausting every possible argument he can make."

However, Shugerman also pointed out that even if this appeal is unsuccessful, it doesn't preclude the possibility of success with other arguments, stating, "The point isn't that Trump has no substantive arguments. He has actually plenty of strong, substantive arguments. It's just that they should go through state court."

The Core of Trump's Appeal

The central argument of Trump's legal team is that the case should be transferred to federal court. They contend that prosecutors from the Manhattan District Attorney's office relied on evidence connected to his official actions as president.

Key points of their argument include:

• A court filing from early March argues that the prosecution "rested its case on testimony probing President Trump's official acts during his first term."
• They believe the trial made it clear that Trump's appeal belongs in federal court.
• The U.S. Department of Justice has shown support for the president with an amicus brief.

The Manhattan District Attorney's office, however, maintains that the case cannot be moved to federal court after sentencing, although Trump's lawyers dispute the clarity of the law on this matter.

The Federal Officer Removal Statute

Their argument hinges on the Federal Officer Removal Statute, a law dating back to the early 19th century. This statute allows federal officials charged with crimes in state courts to move their cases to federal courts if the case involves conduct within their federal office. The idea is that a federal court would provide a more neutral setting for the trial.

Shugerman describes it as a "'Get Out of State Court Free' card," but only applicable in specific circumstances.

This is not the first time Trump's legal team has tried to use this law. Previous attempts were rejected because the core crime occurred before Trump held federal office, specifically, the payments to Stormy Daniels occurred before the 2016 election.

Stephen Vladeck, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center, explains the challenge: "The problem is that President Trump's lawyers are trying to take a statute that's about whether the underlying conduct was committed within the scope of your federal office, and turn it into does the case in any way, shape or form, touch your federal office. To do that would really stretch the statute further than it's ever been stretched before."

Broader Implications

Vladeck emphasizes the potential ramifications beyond just this case: "It's not just about Trump. The more you expand the ability of current and even former federal officers to use the Federal Officer Removal Statute, the more you're widening the scope of cases that can be removed from state court to federal court in ways that really are, I think, arguably usurping the role of state courts in our system."

The hearing will be held before a three-judge panel at the Second Circuit, with two judges appointed by former President Barack Obama and one by President Joe Biden.

Additionally, Trump's legal team filed a notice of appeal with New York state's mid-level appeals court in January following his sentencing. Hearings for this appeal are yet to be scheduled.

As this legal saga continues to unfold, it underscores the complexities and far-reaching implications of Trump's historic criminal case. The outcome of these appeals will undoubtedly shape legal precedents and further define the boundaries of executive power and accountability.

Tags: Trump, appeal hearing, criminal case, Stormy Daniels, hush money, New York, court, 2016 election, conviction, Manhattan

Source: https://www.npr.org/2025/06/11/nx-s1-5428246/trump-continues-to-appeal-historic-criminal-case-hush-money-stormy-daniels