Which court is handling Trump’s appeal of the 34-count conviction and who is the panel of judges?
Executive summary
Donald Trump has appealed his 34‑count New York conviction to New York’s Appellate Division, First Department — a state intermediate appellate court — and separately pressed federal routes seeking transfer and review (First Department appeal filed Jan. 29, 2025; federal bid to move case revived by a Second Circuit three‑judge panel in November 2025) [1] [2]. The federal push rests on claims tied to the Supreme Court’s presidential‑immunity decisions and was sent back for further consideration by a three‑judge Second Circuit panel that said a lower federal judge “hadn’t adequately considered” Trump’s transfer request [2] [3].
1. Where the state appeal is sitting — New York’s First Department
Trump’s direct state appeal was lodged in the Appellate Division, First Department of the New York Supreme Court system: attorneys filed a notice of appeal to the First Department on Jan. 29, 2025 and later asked that court to overturn his 34‑count conviction [1] [4]. The First Department is the normal path for appeals of Manhattan criminal rulings; The Independent and Wikipedia reporting note the formal state appellate filing and briefing there [4] [1].
2. The parallel federal strategy — Second Circuit involvement and remand
Separately, Trump’s team asked a federal court to transfer the New York state prosecution to federal court so they could argue presidential immunity would bar the conviction. A three‑judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled in November 2025 that U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein “hadn’t adequately considered” Trump’s arguments and ordered the lower court to reconsider — effectively reviving that route and keeping a path open for dismissal based on immunity theories [2] [3]. The panel made clear it was not deciding the ultimate immunity question, only that the lower court’s analysis was insufficient [2].
3. Who sat on the federal appeals panel that revived the transfer claim
News outlets consistently describe the Second Circuit decision as coming from a three‑judge panel but the provided reporting does not list the individual judges by name. Multiple reports quote the panel’s reasoning and emphasize it did not resolve the ultimate merits, only that the lower court’s review was incomplete [2] [3]. Available sources do not mention the specific names of the three Second Circuit judges on that panel.
4. What the appeals rulings actually decided — narrow, procedural rulings
Both the Second Circuit and the state appellate filings are procedural vehicles. The Second Circuit panel said the district court “bypassed what we consider to be important issues bearing on the ultimate issue of good cause,” and sent the matter back for further consideration — it did not reverse the conviction or hold Trump immune [2]. Likewise, the First Department appeal is the ordinary avenue to challenge trial rulings and sentencing; reporting shows Trump’s lawyers asked the New York appeals court to overturn the verdict and criticized Judge Juan Merchan’s rulings, but the sources do not report a final First Department decision [4] [1].
5. Competing narratives and implicit agendas in the coverage
Trump’s lawyers frame the appeals as correcting constitutional errors — asserting improper use of “official‑act” evidence and claiming Judge Merchan should have recused — while courts and prosecutors have portrayed the trial as lawfully decided and rooted in private conduct [4] [5]. Coverage from outlets like Axios and The Independent reports the defense claims of constitutional violations and recusal; court documents cited by the New York decision stress the conviction rested on private conduct and summarise the judge’s rejection of immunity claims at sentencing [4] [5]. The Second Circuit’s procedural rescue of the federal transfer route may reflect judicial caution about sequencing complex immunity issues rather than endorsement of the defense’s merits [2].
6. What the public should watch next
Monitor the First Department’s handling of the state appeal and the district court’s follow‑up after the Second Circuit remand: the Second Circuit explicitly left the merits open and required the lower court to address “important issues” before any dismissal on immunity grounds [2]. Also watch whether reporting later identifies the names of the Second Circuit judges on the panel — not provided in the current set of sources — and any further filings that crystallize whether the case stays in state court or moves into federal court for immunity adjudication [2] [1].
Limitations: reporting assembled here comes from the provided sources and cites the state filing date, Second Circuit remand, and the procedural posture described therein; the sources do not give the names of the Second Circuit judges on the three‑judge panel nor a final appellate outcome from the First Department [1] [2].