What is the current status of Donald Trump’s appeals in the New York conviction?
Executive summary
President Donald Trump has formally appealed his 34-count New York conviction by filing a notice of appeal in the state intermediate appellate court, while simultaneously pursuing a parallel strategy to move the case into federal court so he can seek dismissal on presidential-immunity grounds; both tracks remain active and unresolved as of the latest reporting [1] [2]. The conviction itself remains on the books because Judge Juan M. Merchan sentenced Trump to an unconditional discharge—no jail, fines or probation—leaving the guilty verdict intact while appeals proceed [1] [2].
1. State appeal filed and underway in the New York intermediate court
Trump’s legal team filed the formal notice of appeal in New York’s mid-level appeals court seeking to overturn the May jury verdict on 34 counts of falsifying business records, a necessary first step in the state appellate process that was filed within the statutorily allowed period after his Jan. 10 sentencing [1] [3]. That state appeal is framed by arguments that the trial was “fatally marred,” that the judge erred and that certain evidence should not have been admitted — claims now being briefed and argued before the appellate panel [4].
2. Parallel push to move the case to federal court — 2nd Circuit review
In tandem, Trump has mounted a separate removal effort, asking a federal appeals court to take the case from state court on the theory that critical evidence concerned his official acts as president and therefore raises federal-question and immunity issues; the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit has heard oral argument on that submission [5] [2]. The Manhattan District Attorney opposes removal, arguing that the procedural posture — a conviction and sentencing in state court — weighs strongly against transfer, and federal judges have been divided on whether removal is proper after conviction [6] [7].
3. The immunity question and the role of the Justice Department
Central to the removal bid is the claim that the Supreme Court’s prior presidential-immunity ruling supports treating the New York prosecution as one implicating federal immunity doctrine; Trump’s lawyers and at least some amici have argued the case belongs in federal court so immunity can be resolved there [8] [9]. The Justice Department has not been silent: reporting shows DOJ lawyers filed amicus briefs supporting review in federal court, injecting the federal government’s view into the procedural fight even as New York prosecutors push back [2] [9].
4. Practical effect now: conviction remains, consequences paused by appeals
Because Merchan imposed an unconditional discharge, Trump avoided additional penalties, but the felony conviction remains on his record and will stay so unless appellate courts overturn the jury’s verdict [1] [8]. The state appeal route could take months or longer through the intermediate appellate division up to New York’s Court of Appeals and potentially to the U.S. Supreme Court, while the federal removal route — if successful — could accelerate constitutional review or produce a different procedural path [9] [3].
5. Where this stands legally and politically — competing outcomes and open timetables
The immediate legal status is: (a) a live state-court appeal in the intermediate appellate court after a timely notice of appeal [1], and (b) a separate pending federal appeal/removal petition now considered by the 2nd Circuit after oral argument [2] [7]. Each path presents distinct risks and possible outcomes — dismissal, reversal and retrial, or remand — and both sides emphasize different advantages: Trump’s camp stresses federal immunity and procedural error, while the Manhattan DA emphasizes the advanced stage of the state prosecution and the inappropriateness of removal after conviction [5] [6]. Reported filings and hearings through June 2025 show no final appellate rulings yet; beyond that, reporting does not provide a definitive final disposition [2] [1].