What is the current stage and timeline of Trump's appeal for the 34 felony convictions?
Executive summary
Trump’s legal team has filed appeals seeking to overturn his May 2024 conviction on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in the New York “hush‑money” case, arguing presidential-immunity errors and seeking a transfer to federal court; federal judges and the Justice Department have both engaged with the immunity question and federal courts have at times signaled willingness to reconsider jurisdictional issues [1] [2] [3]. State and federal rounds remain ongoing: filings to New York’s state appellate court were made in late October 2025 and related federal appeals and motions to move the case from state to federal court have drawn active consideration from appeals panels [4] [1] [3].
1. What was convicted and when — the factual baseline
A Manhattan jury found Trump guilty on all 34 counts of falsifying business records tied to hush‑money payments during the 2016 election; the conviction was returned in May 2024 and is the factual predicate for all current appeals [5] [4]. Court documents and press coverage repeatedly note the 34‑count conviction as the central fact around which appeals operate [6] [7].
2. Primary grounds of the appeal — presidential immunity and evidentiary claims
Trump’s lawyers argue the conviction was “fatally marred” because the trial admitted evidence they say related to official presidential acts that the Supreme Court’s immunity decision shields from prosecution; they assert testimony (for example, from former aide Hope Hicks) and other trial evidence crossed that line [1] [4]. The Justice Department filed a friend‑of‑the‑court brief adopting Trump’s view that evidence of official acts can never be harmless, urging that the conviction should be set aside on immunity grounds [2].
3. State appeals and timing — filings and state‑court path
Attorneys for Trump filed papers in the New York state appellate court in late October 2025 asking that the 34‑count verdict be overturned; appellate judges in the state system are expected to take time to decide the merits, and state‑court review could stretch over months to years if the case proceeds through normal appellate channels [4] [1]. Coverage notes that state appeals remain the immediate procedural route for undoing the conviction absent an interlocutory federal intervention [4].
4. Federal strategy — moving the case and potential shortcut
Trump’s team has simultaneously sought to move review into federal court — arguing that federal courts should decide immunity questions and potentially grant relief faster; federal appeals judges have signaled receptivity to at least reconsidering the jurisdictional issue, which could accelerate review and create a path toward the Supreme Court [3] [8]. A federal appeals panel ordered a lower federal judge to reconsider Trump’s request to move the case from state to federal court, showing active federal judicial involvement [8] [2].
5. Where federal courts and DOJ stand — mixed but consequential signals
Federal appeals judges have suggested willingness to entertain transferring the appeal to federal court — an outcome lawyers and commentators say could make vacatur of the conviction more attainable — and the Justice Department’s brief supporting Trump’s immunity arguments is an unusual alignment that strengthens his federal argument [3] [2]. Media outlets report those signals matter because state appeals alone “could take a couple of years,” while federal intervention might speed resolution [2].
6. How long could this take — realistic timelines and bottlenecks
Available reporting highlights two timelines: state appellate review can be slow (potentially years) while federal review or a successful transfer could be faster but is procedurally complex and contested; appeals courts have discretionary power and judges appear divided on jurisdiction and immunity questions, so the case’s ultimate path is uncertain [2] [3]. Precise timing is not given in the sources; they emphasize that federal transfer could “speed up” possible exoneration compared with the “couple of years” a state process may require [2] [3].
7. Competing perspectives and implicit agendas
Trump’s team frames the appeal as correcting constitutional error and casts prosecutors as pursuing a politically motivated “witch hunt,” language mirrored in their filings and statements [1]. Federal judges and the DOJ have, at different points, advanced arguments sympathetic to immunity claims — a posture critics say may reflect institutional caution about prosecuting presidential acts, while supporters of the conviction stress the trial judge found the conduct personal and that any official‑acts evidence was harmless in light of the record [5] [8]. Coverage notes these competing legal narratives shape whether an appeals court leans toward vacating the verdict or sustaining it [1] [2].
8. What to watch next
Watch for orders from the New York appellate court on the October 2025 filings, any federal appeals court rulings on the jurisdictional transfer, and whether the Supreme Court is eventually asked to weigh immunity scope — each step is decisive for the speed and outcome of relief from the 34 convictions [4] [3] [2]. Available sources do not mention specific scheduled dates for final appellate rulings beyond the filings and the federal panel’s instruction to reconsider jurisdiction [4] [8].