How have courts and appeals ruled on convictions involving Donald Trump since 2023?

1. Supreme Court rewrites immunity rules, reshuffling appeals

In a 2024 decision addressing whether a president can be criminally prosecuted for acts during office, the Supreme Court held that presidents have absolute immunity for core constitutional duties, presumptive immunity for acts on the “outer perimeter” of official responsibility, and no immunity for clearly unofficial conduct — a framework lower courts must apply ^[1]. That ruling directly produced new appellate litigation, with defendants (including Trump) seeking to re-litigate whether trial evidence implicated immunized official acts ^{[4] [5]}.

2. D.C. and lower federal courts provided early scaffolding — then were upended

Before the high court’s ruling, the D.C. Circuit had upheld a district judge’s rejection of broad immunity claims in the Jan. 6-related civil context, concluding some of Trump’s conduct was “as office‑seeker, not office‑holder” ^[2]. The Supreme Court’s later decision required rereading such holdings through its new two-tier immunity standard, leading to appeals and remands in multiple matters ^{[2] [3]}.

3. The Manhattan criminal conviction: procedural wins, not yet final reversals

Trump was convicted in May 2024 on 34 counts tied to falsifying business records in Manhattan. After the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling, appellate panels have reopened procedural routes to attack that verdict — notably by ordering lower courts to reconsider whether the case or its evidence should be assessed under the immunity framework and even whether the case belongs in federal court ^{[5] [4] [7]}. Appeals filings in late 2025 formally ask New York appellate courts to overturn the conviction, arguing key trial evidence stemmed from “official acts” now immune under the Supreme Court decision ^{[8] [9] [10]}. Available sources do not mention a final appellate or Supreme Court decision reversing that conviction; the appeals process remains active in the reporting ^{[7] [11]}.

4. Mixed appellate results in civil and other criminal matters

State and federal appeals have produced divergent outcomes: some courts upheld rulings against Trump (for example, the D.C. Circuit’s December 2023 unanimous opinion rejecting blanket immunity early on) while other appeals courts have affirmed penalties or sanctions in separate suits such as a $1 million sanction and New York state civil fraud findings — though some penalties have been the subject of later appellate change and additional litigation ^{[2] [12] [13]}. The New York business-fraud judgment by Judge Engoron in 2023 and subsequent remedies have been appealed and remain subject to appellate scrutiny, including later appellate orders affecting remedies ^{[14] [13]}.

5. Strategic posture: appeals seek procedural pathways created by immunity ruling

Across multiple matters, Trump’s teams have focused less on re-litigating facts than on procedural and jurisdictional routes opened or reshaped by the Supreme Court immunity decision — petitions to transfer state convictions to federal court, motions to exclude evidence as immunized, and appeals arguing judges erred in admitting testimony about presidential acts ^{[4] [5] [8]}. Appellate panels have sometimes granted relief only to require lower courts to reconsider — not to declare final reversals — leaving outcomes unsettled and contingent on further fact-specific analysis ^{[5] [7]}.

6. What the record shows and what remains unsettled

Available sources document the Supreme Court’s immunity framework ^[1], appellate orders reopening review or remanding decisions ^{[5] [4] [7]}, and active appeals of the Manhattan conviction and high‑profile civil judgments ^{[8] [14]}. Sources do not report a definitive, final appellate reversal of Trump’s May 2024 Manhattan conviction as of the latest reporting included here; instead, they show appellate panels granting procedural relief and sending questions back to lower courts for fact-specific immunity analysis ^{[7] [11]}.

Limitations and competing perspectives: the immunity doctrine adopted by the Supreme Court is sharply contested in commentary and has produced divergent readings at the lower-court level; proponents argue it protects necessary presidential functions while critics say it risks placing presidents above the law — both views are reflected across the reporting ^{[1] [2]}. All factual assertions above are based on the cited reporting; available sources do not mention any final Supreme Court or appellate ruling that conclusively nullified Trump’s criminal conviction.