Judge Denies Trump’s Bid to Vacate Hush Money Conviction
Judge Hellerstein rejected Trump’s attempt to move or vacate his hush money conviction.
Why it matters: This ruling highlights ongoing judicial resistance to legal maneuvers by prominent political figures, affecting litigation strategies and political-legal risk for law firms and counsel covering political litigation.
- On August 28, 2026, U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein denied Trump’s bid to transfer his state criminal case to federal court.
- Trump was convicted in May 2024 on 34 felony counts for falsifying business records related to a $130,000 hush payment to Stormy Daniels.
- Judge Hellerstein ruled discussions about the hush money payment are not official acts, rejecting presidential immunity claims.
- This is the third time Judge Hellerstein has blocked Trump’s efforts to move the case from state to federal jurisdiction.
On August 28, 2026, U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein denied President Donald Trump’s latest attempt to move his New York state criminal case involving hush money payments to federal court. The judge emphasized that Trump’s grounds for removal were “neither new nor legally sufficient” and that he failed to show “good cause and diligence.”
Trump was originally convicted in May 2024 on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records connected to a $130,000 hush payment made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels. The payment was made to conceal Trump’s relations with Daniels, a move the federal judge ruled did not constitute an official presidential act and is thus outside protections of presidential immunity.
This ruling marks the third time Judge Hellerstein has rejected Trump's efforts to transfer the state criminal case to federal court, reaffirming the state court's authority and the validity of the conviction. The judge reiterated that discussions about hush money payments are personal conduct, not protected by constitutional immunity.
Trump’s legal team continues to assert that the case should be moved to federal court and dismissed, citing the Supreme Court's decisions on immunity and constitutional arguments. They labeled the Manhattan District Attorney's prosecution a “witch hunt,” but these claims have been firmly rejected by the federal court.
The judge's ruling signals sustained judicial resistance to attempts by high-profile political figures to shift or erase convictions through legal maneuvers. For legal professionals advising on political litigation, this underscores the limits of immunity claims and the firm stance courts are taking toward accountability for personal actions during or around public office tenure.
By the numbers:
- 34 felony counts — charges for falsifying business records in Trump's conviction
- $130,000 — hush money paid to Stormy Daniels
- 3 — times Judge Hellerstein has denied Trump's removal requests
- August 28, 2026 — date of the latest ruling
Yes, but: Trump's legal team maintains plans to appeal, arguing the case should be controlled by federal court and dismissed, though previous attempts have failed.
What's next: Legal teams will pursue the appellate process next, but specific timelines or outcomes remain unclear.