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.
Where does Trump's appeal of the 34 felonies stand?
Executive summary
President Trump is actively litigating to overturn his 34-count New York felony conviction: he filed a direct appeal in New York state court and separately seeks to move the case into federal court on presidential-immunity grounds, and a federal appeals panel recently ordered a lower judge to reconsider whether the case belongs in federal court [1] [2] [3]. That federal ruling revived a path to challenge the conviction based on the Supreme Court’s immunity guidance and does not itself reverse the verdict — it sends questions back for further consideration [4] [5].
1. Where the formal appeals stand: parallel state and federal tracks
Trump has pursued multiple avenues: he filed a notice of appeal in the New York state appellate division and separately asked the First Department to overturn his conviction, while also pressing federal courts to remove the prosecution so he can seek dismissal under presidential-immunity theories tied to the U.S. Supreme Court decision [1] [6]. Those are concurrent but distinct tracks — one is the normal state-court appeal of a criminal verdict and the other is an extraordinary bid to shift the case to federal jurisdiction to invoke immunity doctrines [1] [4].
2. What the federal appeals panel actually did and what it did not do
On Nov. 6, a federal appeals panel ordered a lower judge to reconsider whether the case should be kept in state court or moved to federal court, instructing that the district judge evaluate if disputed evidence “relates to acts taken under color of the Presidency” and whether Trump “diligently” sought removal [3] [5]. The panel expressly said it “express[es] no view” on the ultimate merits; it did not vacate the state conviction or declare Trump immune — it reopened a procedural route that could, if successful, lead to dismissal later [3] [5].
3. The immunity argument Trump’s team is leaning on
Trump’s lawyers argue the Manhattan trial was “fatally marred” because jurors heard evidence they say was protected by the Supreme Court’s presidential-immunity decision; they contend that some testimony and White House-related materials involved “official acts” and therefore required federal consideration under immunity principles [2] [4]. Available reporting describes this as the core claim behind both the federal removal effort and parts of the state-court appeal [2] [6].
4. How courts have responded so far and what precedent matters
Lower courts have been split in prior stages: the D.C. Circuit had earlier ruled Trump was not immune in a different context, and the Supreme Court later recognized “some immunity” for official acts — language that Trump’s lawyers rely on now [7]. The federal appeals panel here did not definitively apply those precedents to void the conviction; instead it instructed renewed factual and legal analysis at the district level about whether the evidence truly concerned presidential acts and whether Trump sought removal in a timely fashion [5] [4].
5. Practical implications and likely next steps
Because the appeals are proceeding on dual tracks, outcomes can diverge: the state appeal could continue even as federal judges reconsider jurisdictional issues, and any favorable federal ruling could lead to dismissal or to remand depending on findings about which evidence implicated official acts [1] [3]. Reporters note the appeals court’s order “gave new life” to Trump’s bid to erase the conviction, but it remains a procedural revival rather than a final victory [3] [4].
6. What supporters and critics emphasize (competing perspectives)
Trump’s team frames the filings as a necessary defense of presidential immunity and an effort to correct a trial “fatally marred” by protected evidence [2]. Critics and many observers counter that previous rulings and the jury’s 34-count guilty verdict remain in force until higher courts definitively rule otherwise; reporting stresses the appeals court’s limited scope and its instruction not to prejudge the merits [3] [5]. Both positions are rooted in different readings of how far the Supreme Court’s immunity language extends and in assessments of what evidence at trial involved official acts [2] [5].
7. Limitations in coverage and what’s not yet answered
Available sources do not mention a final decision from the state appellate court overturning the conviction, nor do they show any federal court yet declaring full presidential immunity that would erase the 34 counts; the materials describe active, ongoing litigation and procedural rulings rather than a conclusive resolution [1] [3] [5]. Key factual determinations — whether specific evidence qualifies as an “official act” and whether removal timing suffices — remain to be resolved in the lower courts before any definitive outcome emerges [5] [4].
Bottom line: Trump’s appeals are live and multi-fronted. A federal panel has reopened a possible route to challenge the New York conviction on immunity grounds, but that procedural win is not the same as erasing the 34 guilty verdicts — more fact-finding and legal rulings are required before the ultimate status of those convictions is settled [3] [2] [5].