What legal grounds is Trump citing in his appeal of the 34 felony convictions?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
President Trump’s appeal of the 34-count New York felony conviction rests primarily on claims of presidential immunity and related procedural errors — arguing that evidence of his “official acts” was wrongly admitted and that the case belonged in federal court — while also advancing arguments about judicial recusal and political motivation; supporters frame these as constitutional protections, critics say they are re-litigating factual findings already made by a jury [1] [2] [3] [4]. The filings seek to erase the conviction by asking appellate and federal courts to consider immunity, evidentiary rulings, and judge-disqualification issues that his lawyers say tainted the trial [1] [5] [4].
1. Presidential immunity: the centerpiece of the appeal
The dominant legal ground Trump cites is presidential immunity — the contention that actions taken in the course of his official duties cannot form the basis for state criminal liability, and therefore key evidence and testimony about his conduct as president should have been excluded or the case heard in federal court [1] [5]. His lawyers rely on the Supreme Court’s post-trial immunity rulings and related precedents to argue that testimony about “official acts” (for example, decisions or conduct tied to his presidency) was improperly admitted and that such evidence infected the entire trial record [6] [1].
2. Move-to-federal-court strategy and the Second Circuit’s intervention
Closely tied to immunity is a tactical bid to shift the case from state to federal court so that federal judges can decide immunity questions; a federal appeals panel has already given Trump another opportunity to press that route by finding a lower federal judge did not sufficiently address those issues, effectively reopening the door to a federal forum where immunity can be litigated [3] [7]. The strategy seeks not merely to get a new trial but to have federal courts rule that state prosecution was improper because of federal-immunity concerns [3] [7].
3. Evidentiary errors and “official acts” testimony
Another thread of the appeal attacks the trial court’s decisions to admit testimony and documents the defense says were focused on Trump’s official conduct rather than purely personal or business activity — notably testimony from former aides such as Hope Hicks — arguing those rulings violated federal law, the New York constitution, and prejudiced the jury [1] [2]. The brief asserts that repeated admission of such evidence amounted to “clear violations” of constitutional and evidentiary norms and therefore the verdict must be set aside [1] [2].
4. Judicial recusal and claims of bias
Trump’s lawyers also advance recusal claims, arguing Judge Juan Merchan should have been disqualified because of alleged conflicts or political ties, a contention that seeks to paint the trial as tainted by a biased arbiter and therefore subject to reversal or retrial [4] [8]. That argument is presented alongside the immunity claims as part of a broader attack on the fairness and legitimacy of the proceedings [4].
5. Political-prosecution narrative and competing frames
The appeal’s filings explicitly frame the prosecution as politically motivated and “the most politically charged” prosecution in modern memory, an argument intended to persuade appellate judges that the case was driven by electoral politics rather than legitimate law enforcement — an assertion emphasized in Trump’s brief and repeated in allied outlets [4] [8]. Opponents and neutral observers counter that these are legal arguments seeking relief after a jury conviction and that appellate courts will treat factual findings and trial rulings with deference unless clear legal error is shown [9] [10].
6. What appellate relief is being sought and the practical stakes
The filings request reversal or vacatur of the conviction, and in parallel seek transfer to federal court to resolve immunity questions that could, in theory, nullify the verdict or require dismissal; recent procedural wins in federal appellate panels have given the defense additional pathways to press those claims even as the state conviction currently remains on the books despite an unconditional discharge at sentencing [3] [11] [5]. While proponents present immunity as a constitutional shield, critics warn this approach risks substituting broad legal doctrine for jury-determined facts — a contested legal battle that appellate courts will now decide [6] [2].