Can Trump appeal the felony convictions in the Supreme Court?

1. The procedural path he has taken so far: state appeals, federal filings, and notices of appeal

After his 2024 jury conviction on falsifying business records, Trump filed notices of appeal in New York’s appellate courts and has pursued parallel federal filings insisting the case implicates presidential immunity — a mix of state appellate briefs and requests to transfer or pause proceedings in federal court is on the record. ^{[1] [3]}

2. Two routes to the Supreme Court: certiorari after state exhaustion, and federal interlocutory review on immunity

The traditional route is to exhaust state appeals, then petition the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari from a state high court decision; that is the path used historically in high‑profile state criminal cases. ^[1] Separately, Trump’s team has pressed a federal route: asking federal judges to entertain immunity questions and invoking interlocutory appeals that could, in unusual circumstances, be expedited to the Supreme Court or lead to the high court taking up the issue after a federal appeals decision. ^{[3] [4]}

3. Immunity is the core legal question that could attract the high court’s attention

Trump’s lawyers explicitly argue that the Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity creates a legal bar to prosecution for certain official acts and that the New York prosecution relied on evidence the immunity decision put off limits, framing the appeal as a federal constitutional question worthy of Supreme Court review. ^{[2] [4]} The Second Circuit has already given him another shot to press immunity claims to a federal judge, which keeps open the prospect of further federal appellate review and, potentially, a Supreme Court petition. ^[3]

4. Prosecutors’ counterargument and lower‑court skepticism about immunity here

Manhattan prosecutors and several lower-court judges have maintained that the hush‑money payments were private, unofficial conduct not covered by the immunity doctrine, and they have resisted moving the case into federal court on that basis. ^{[3] [5]} Courts that have denied removal so far said Trump had not met the high burden to show that the case turns on official acts, a factual and legal fight that appellate panels have been asked to revisit. ^[3]

5. The Supreme Court’s practical role: discretionary review and recent signals from the bench

The Supreme Court alone decides whether to grant certiorari, and denial of a petition leaves lower‑court convictions in place; the justices have in past decisions both eased and limited challenges to presidential power, and they have shown willingness to intervene on immunity questions in recent terms — making the high court a plausible forum but not an assured one. ^{[6] [7]} Political and doctrinal considerations matter: some reporting notes a conservative Fifth and Sixth? — the court’s recent conservative-majority decisions have sometimes favored presidential claims, which defenders of Trump view as a hopeful sign. ^{[8] [9]}

6. Bottom line and limits of current reporting

Bottom line: Trump can appeal to the Supreme Court — he has active state appeals and federal immunity arguments that could be routed upward — but the high court’s intervention is discretionary and contested; prosecutors argue the conduct was private and not subject to immunity, and lower courts have both pushed back and, in some instances, reopened avenues for federal consideration, so the outcome remains unresolved in the record. ^{[1] [3]} Reporting reviewed shows the procedural mechanics and competing legal theories clearly, but cannot predict whether the Supreme Court will grant review or how it would rule if it does. ^{[2] [6]}