What are the possible next legal steps if an appeal in Trump’s felony cases is denied?

1. Appeal to the state intermediate appellate court and the New York Court of Appeals

A routine next step after a trial-court denial is to press the appeal through New York’s appellate ladder: Trump already filed a notice in the First Department, which is the intermediate appellate court in New York, and could seek further review from the state’s highest court, the New York Court of Appeals, if the First Department affirms ^[1]. The state appellate path is conventional and can produce rulings on trial error, evidentiary matters, or legal questions such as the proper interpretation of falsifying-business-records statutes; prosecutors frame some disputes as forum-selection issues rather than immunity questions, underscoring competing agendas in the state courts ^[2].

2. Rehearing, panel rehearing, and motions to stay sentencing pending appeal

If an initial appeal is denied, counsel can seek panel rehearing or an en banc rehearing in the appellate court and separately move the trial judge to delay sentencing or stay any punishment while appeals proceed; experts have highlighted that sentencing and its timing create leverage, including the potential to push punishment past an elected term in office ^[4]. PBS noted that appeals cannot generally be pursued until sentencing occurs, which makes timing and stay motions strategically crucial for any pause in enforcement ^[3].

3. Removal to federal court and parallel federal litigation over immunities

A prominent alternative already being pursued is to argue the case should be removed from state court to federal court or that aspects of the record implicate presidential-immunity defenses that belong in federal fora; appeals panels have already revived part of that removal bid, signaling a live federal-route option ^{[5] [2]}. If removal is denied in state channels, defense teams can still press federal courts through separate petitions or certiorari routes, arguing that admitted evidence or trial rulings implicate immunized official acts — a contention that appellate panels have flagged as insufficiently considered below ^[6].

4. Supreme Court escalation on immunity and other federal claims

The high-stakes strategy for long-shot legal rescue is taking immunity questions — or conflicting state and federal rulings — to the U.S. Supreme Court, a path Trump’s lawyers have signaled and litigants in related matters have pursued; commentators have noted plans to press immunities potentially “all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court” and observers expect immunity doctrines to be a focal point for further review ^{[4] [3]}. The Court’s docket and appetite for sweeping immunity rulings will shape whether that route yields a halt or reversal ^{[7] [8]}.

5. Political timing, presidential duties, and tactical delay

Strategic delay is itself a legal option: judges can postpone execution of any sentence until appeals are exhausted or defer penalties until after an administration ends, a possibility raised in reporting about sentencing timing and its interaction with the president’s term ^[4]. That option — combined with aggressive appellate pushes in state and federal courts — has been central to defense planning and is affected by the broader litigation environment, including how receptive appellate tribunals prove to be to federal arguments ^{[9] [10]}.

6. What the prosecution and critics emphasize as counterweights

Prosecutors and some legal observers counter that these maneuvers are forum-shopping or delay tactics; Manhattan prosecutors, for example, frame federal-removal arguments as improper efforts to change where a state crime is adjudicated rather than substantive defects in the conviction, an argument the appeals briefing has had to grapple with ^[2]. Meanwhile, analyses of the federal judiciary’s recent track record underscore that venue and judicial composition matter, and that appellate alignments can materially affect outcomes ^[9].