A federal judge in New York has rejected for a second time President Donald Trump’s request to transfer his criminal hush money case from state court to federal court, where his conviction could be set aside.

Judge Alvin Hellerstein said Trump had not shown good cause or diligence and that the reasons given for the second bid were not new and not legally sufficient.

Judge Denies Second Removal Request

The judge’s order, issued on Friday, followed a requirement from a federal appeals court that he reconsider the removal attempt after a US Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity.

Hellerstein wrote that the grounds cited by Trump were not supported by new facts and did not meet the legal threshold for removal. “I reaffirm my former decision. The president's motion is denied,” he said.

Trump’s attorneys said they plan to appeal the latest ruling.

Why The case Returned For Reconsideration

In ordering Hellerstein to reconsider, the appeals court pointed to the Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity, which changed how courts were expected to treat actions a president carries out in an official capacity.

Trump’s latest bid aimed at moving his prosecution to federal court, but Hellerstein said the removal request did not satisfy the requirements for a second attempt, noting that Trump did not identify new, legally relevant material.

Conviction Linked To $130,000 Daniels Payment

Trump was convicted of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records connected to a $130,000 hush payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels. Daniels’ legal name is Stephanie Clifford. Trump is appealing the conviction.

After Friday’s decision, the case remains in state court for now, as Trump seeks appellate review of the underlying conviction. Trump’s conviction appeal challenges the result of the trial and, separately, his request to transfer the case. By denying removal, Hellerstein prevented the matter from moving to federal court at this stage.

The judge rejected Trump’s argument that, under the immunity framework for “official acts”, certain categories of testimony and documents used by prosecutors could not be considered in the case. Hellerstein said the asserted basis was not new and therefore did not justify a second transfer attempt.

Join the discussion?

29 August 2026

View full article

I doubt the crook will ever end up in prison, not least because of his ripe old age, but at least he should have the prospect of this lingering for the remainder of his life.

Every time I read the unhinged rantings of Trump I take comfort in knowing that he must be one of the most miserable people in the world .

13 hours ago, Red Forever said:

Every time I read the unhinged rantings of Trump I take comfort in knowing that he must be one of the most miserable people in the world .

Are you kidding?

Had Nitro Circus perform on the South Lawn, Kid Rock, Dana White as friends.

The dude is 80 and this is his last hurrah probably before kicking off.

Always wondered if that was in his mind when making some decisions. That he probably wouldn't be around so what does it matter.

Edited August 29Aug 29 by J Branche

You mean...

Trump’s alleged payment to conceal a sexual allegation case?

Or Trump’s alleged cover-up payment and tax-records case?

And Trump’s alleged payment to suppress a sexual scandal case?

What about Trump’s alleged payoff-to-hide-a-sexual-encounter case?

Or Trump’s shady cover-up payment disguised as legal expenses case?

Or could it be Trump’s alleged attempt to disguise a sex-scandal payoff as a business expense?

Holy moly, it's worst than Bill Clinton & Monica, his ‘pay her to keep quiet about my alleged tiny penis’ tax case”...

It's "Trump’s ‘hide the sex-scandal payment from the IRS’ case”

Look over there! It's Lake America! My new ballroom! Arch! Renaming an airport after ME ME ME! Let's forget about Kennedy, what a loser couldn't survive an assassination attempts, let's rename it after ME ME ME 🤣

I pity Trump's lawyers trying to argue that paying off a hooker falls under a president's 'official acts'.

Does anyone on the forum think presidential immunity is applicable here?