Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What is the current status of the legal proceedings against Trump regarding the 34 counts?
Executive summary
Donald Trump was convicted in May 2024 on 34 counts of falsifying business records tied to hush-money payments to Stormy Daniels; jurors found him guilty on all counts and that verdict has been the subject of multiple post‑conviction legal maneuvers and appeals [1] [2]. As of the most recent reporting in these sources, appellate review and questions about presidential immunity have kept the case alive in higher courts, with judges and panels examining how Supreme Court immunity guidance affects the New York conviction [3] [4].
1. The core conviction: 34 counts for falsifying business records
A Manhattan jury convicted Trump in May 2024 on 34 felony counts charging falsification of business records connected to payments made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels; the counts related to alleged efforts to conceal a $130,000 payment and associated costs in the runup to the 2016 election [1] [2]. Multiple outlets in the provided set — including Reuters, Time, and compilations like Wikipedia — describe the same underlying verdict and the factual framing that the payments were concealed via business records [3] [2] [1].
2. Sentencing, delays and the practical status after conviction
Reporting in these sources indicates the conviction led to sentencing proceedings that were delayed and scrutinized amid political and legal questions, including a New York judge setting and later adjusting sentencing dates around electoral timelines [1]. Time and Reuters note that the conviction exposed novel questions about how criminal consequences intersect with presidential status and calendar events for sentencing [2] [3].
3. Appeals and the immunity question now before higher courts
After conviction, Trump pursued appeals that raised the issue of presidential immunity and whether federal immunity guidance from the Supreme Court affects a state prosecution; a three‑judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals instructed further review by a federal judge of how the Supreme Court’s July 2024 immunity decision applies to the New York case [3]. The Hill and Reuters commentary underscore that Trump is seeking more favorable forums and aggressive appellate relief, and that portions of the federal judiciary are scrutinizing whether immunity narrows or bars state charges like these [4] [3].
4. Competing legal strategies and perspectives
Trump’s legal team has repeatedly tried to shift the case into federal court and to tie it to presidential duties — a strategy aimed at claiming immunity or otherwise overturning the state conviction — while prosecutors and some judges have pushed back, characterizing the payments as non‑official acts not covered by presidential immunity [4] [3]. Commentary pieces in the sample present this as a two‑track effort: defense teams seek federal review and broader immunity doctrines, while prosecutors and some courts treat the conduct as outside official presidential action [4] [3].
5. What the public‑facing coverage emphasizes and what it omits
News summaries and retrospectives (Time, Reuters, Wikipedia) emphasize the historic nature of the conviction — the first felony conviction of a U.S. president or former president in modern reporting — and the political reverberations [2] [3] [1]. Available sources do not mention some procedural specifics (for example, every pending appellate brief deadline or the exact current posture of every motion) in the materials provided here; therefore those procedural particulars are not asserted in this summary (not found in current reporting).
6. Political context and why the legal status matters now
Outlets in this set also place the legal story in electoral and political context: polls and election coverage show public opinion swings and midterm/backdrop political dynamics that interact with perceptions of the case, and some reporting notes that election timing influenced court scheduling and prosecutorial decisions [5] [6] [1]. Analysts quoted in these pieces connect the legal saga to broader political debates over accountability, immunity, and the judiciary’s role [2] [4].
7. Where this likely goes next (based on reporting trends)
The immediate legal road described by Reuters and other reporting is continued appellate litigation focused on immunity and venue — federal judges and appellate panels have signaled further review — so expect more rulings about how Supreme Court immunity precedent applies to state prosecutions before any final resolution in the New York matter [3] [4]. If higher courts find immunity applies broadly, that could undermine the conviction; if they find it doesn’t, the state conviction could be reinstated and remain effective subject to standard appellate review [3] [4].
Limitations: this analysis uses only the documents you provided; some up‑to‑the‑minute procedural filings, orders, or new appellate rulings after those reports are not included here (not found in current reporting).