How have federal and state courts handled appeals of Donald Trump's convictions so far?

1. Appeals courts press judges to re-examine whether the New York hush‑money case implicates presidential immunity

A three‑judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein to take a closer look at whether the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision on presidential immunity affects the Manhattan hush‑money prosecution — essentially giving Trump “another chance to erase” that conviction by requiring analysis of whether trial evidence related to official acts is immune ^[1]. The appeals court said Hellerstein did not adequately consider whether evidence admitted at the state trial “relates to immunized official acts” or whether evidentiary immunity would transform the analysis ^{[1] [5]}. Reuters and Fox News report this as a procedural win that does not itself vacate the conviction but forces further judicial review ^{[1] [5]}.

2. Trump’s direct appeal of his New York conviction invokes the Supreme Court immunity decision

Trump’s legal team filed an appeal challenging his criminal conviction in Manhattan on the ground that the trial was “fatally marred” by admission of evidence they now say the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling should have barred; the filing frames the appeal as seeking to set aside the verdict because of constitutional errors and evidentiary rulings tied to his acts as President ^[2]. Axios summarizes the core claim: that testimony and evidence about alleged official acts — for example, testimony from a former aide — should have been excluded under the Court’s immunity framework ^[2].

3. Appeals in parallel state courts and civil cases show different results and remedies

Beyond criminal appeals, New York civil proceedings have produced tangible appellate changes: an appeals court cut a large monetary penalty in the state civil fraud case, and New York’s Attorney General could continue to seek relief at the state’s highest court ^[6]. Axios frames this as a distinct track from the criminal-immigration of immunity questions; civil appeals operate under state standards and have already altered remedies imposed on Trump and co‑defendants ^[6].

4. Emergency appellate practice: the courts and the Supreme Court on time‑sensitive national issues

The Trump administration’s recent emergency filings show how appellate doors — including the Supreme Court — are used rapidly for high‑stakes, time‑sensitive disputes. The administration asked appeals courts and ultimately the Supreme Court to block a lower court order requiring full SNAP payments during a government shutdown; the Supreme Court temporarily granted the administration relief while appeals move forward ^{[3] [7]}. The 1st Circuit initially denied a stay, prompting the emergency Supreme Court request ^[8]. This illustrates how appeals practice for the presidency can mix policy fights with legal strategy in fast timelines ^{[8] [3]}.

5. How courts are treating jurisdictional and removal arguments in tandem with immunity claims

Appellate panels have not limited their review to pure evidentiary immunity. They have also instructed lower courts to reconsider whether state prosecutions that involve alleged official acts belong in federal court — i.e., removal jurisdiction questions. The 2nd Circuit told the lower court to re‑examine whether the hush‑money prosecution should be moved from state to federal court in light of immunity concerns, signaling appellate willingness to scrutinize both jurisdictional posture and evidentiary scope ^{[1] [9]}. ABC News and Reuters cover this procedural turn as reviving Trump’s removal effort alongside his appeal ^{[9] [1]}.

6. Competing viewpoints and what the rulings do — and do not — accomplish

Supporters of Trump argue these appellate interventions are victories that could erase convictions or move cases into federal courts perceived as more favorable, calling the appeals “powerhouse” efforts to vindicate constitutional protections ^[2]. Critics caution that appellate orders to re‑examine do not automatically overturn verdicts; they require further rulings and do not yet resolve whether immunity applies or whether jurisdictional removal is appropriate ^{[1] [5]}. Reporting across Reuters, Axios and others underscores that appellate review is active but provisional — courts are parsing complex intersections of immunity doctrine, evidence rules, and jurisdiction rather than issuing final exonerations ^{[1] [2] [5]}.

Limitations: available sources do not provide final appellate outcomes — the matter is in active appellate review and emergency‑stay practice, so readers should expect further decisions and possible Supreme Court involvement (not found in current reporting).