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.
Status of Trump's appeal of the 34 felonies
Executive summary
President Trump was convicted in May 2024 on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records tied to a 2016 hush‑money payment; he has pursued parallel appeals — a direct state‑court appeal asking New York’s appellate court to void the verdict and a federal effort to move the case and raise presidential‑immunity arguments — and an appeals panel recently revived the federal‑court removal route for further review [1] [2] [3] [4]. Coverage shows the federal appeals move gives Trump “another shot” at erasing the conviction but the judges “express no view” on the ultimate merits, and the state appeal to overturn the conviction is also active [4] [5] [6].
1. The convictions and the two parallel paths on appeal
The underlying conviction is concrete: a Manhattan jury found Trump guilty in May 2024 on 34 counts of falsifying business records related to a $130,000 payment to an adult film actor, a verdict that made him the first former president convicted of felonies [1] [7]. His legal teams are pursuing at least two concurrent strategies: a state‑court direct appeal in New York seeking to overturn the verdict, and a federal approach that argues the case should be moved to federal court — where Trump would press presidential‑immunity arguments that he says tainted the trial [6] [3].
2. What the federal appeals court recently did — and what it did not decide
In early November 2025, a federal appeals panel ordered a lower judge to reexamine whether the case belongs in federal court, reviving Trump’s bid to remove the prosecution from New York state court and thereby reopen the possibility of dismissal on immunity grounds [4] [5]. The appeals panel explicitly “express[ed] no view” on the ultimate question of guilt or immunity; it instructed the lower court to analyze whether disputed evidence “relates to acts taken under color of the Presidency” and whether Trump “diligently” sought removal [4] [5].
3. The immunity argument Trump is pressing
Trump’s lawyers contend parts of the trial — including social‑media posts and testimony from White House aides — were protected by the Supreme Court’s presidential‑immunity decision and therefore the trial was “fatally marred,” forming a central claim in their federal‑court removal bid and in appellate filings seeking to erase the convictions [2] [3]. Reporting frames the federal tactic as focused on whether the evidence at trial implicated “official acts” covered by the Court’s immunity precedent [3] [5].
4. The state‑court appeal remains live
Separately, Trump formally asked a New York state appeals court (the First Department) to overturn the conviction, filing appellate briefs that challenge jury instructions and other trial rulings; that direct state appeal is advancing even as the federal removal path proceeds [8] [6]. News outlets note the two tracks operate in parallel: Trump is asking the state appellate court to void the guilty verdict while seeking a federal forum that might lead to dismissal on immunity grounds [3] [5].
5. What outcomes are realistically possible, per current reporting
Available reporting sets out multiple potential outcomes without predicting one: the federal panel’s order could lead Judge Hellerstein (or other lower‑court judges) to transfer or dismiss the state‑court case if they find immunity issues that warrant removal; alternatively, reviewers could conclude removal is improper and leave the state appeal to proceed on its merits [4] [5]. News outlets emphasize the appeals decision does not itself negate the conviction and that judges “express no view” on guilt, meaning the record conviction and the separate state appeal remain central [4] [5].
6. Political and legal context reported by outlets
Reporting places this legal fight in a broader frame: Trump’s team calls the filings a forceful challenge to a “Manhattan DA’s Witch Hunt,” while courts and commentators note the legal theory at play is novel and hinges on interpreting the Supreme Court’s immunity precedents — a question courts are treating with caution [2] [3]. The New Yorker and other outlets have documented how prosecutors in New York converted misdemeanors into felonies via election‑related theories, a point defendants have flagged as vulnerable on appeal [9] [6].
7. Limitations in the available reporting and what’s not covered
Available sources document the appeals filings and the November 2025 appeals‑court order to reexamine removal but do not provide final rulings disposing of either the federal removal request or the state appeal [4] [5]. Specifics on timing, the detailed legal reasoning lower courts will use on remand, and any final resolution of the state First Department appeal are not found in current reporting [4] [8].
Bottom line: Trump’s 34‑count convictions remain on the books for now, but he has an active state‑court appeal and a freshly revived federal removal path focused on presidential immunity; the appeals panel’s action reopens the possibility of erasing the conviction, but it did not itself reverse or vacate the verdict [1] [4] [2].