How many of Trump's convictions have been vacated by judges and what were the legal reasons?

1. The state of play: no vacaturs reported in these sources

None of the items in the provided reporting state that a judge has vacated any of Trump’s criminal convictions. Instead, the coverage documents motions, appeals and judicial orders that could lead to vacatur — for example, a 2nd Circuit panel told a district judge to re‑examine whether the Manhattan hush‑money conviction should be treated in federal court in light of the Supreme Court’s 2024 immunity ruling ^{[1] [2]}. That is not the same as a judge vacating an existing conviction (not found in current reporting).

2. What “vacating a conviction” would require — and how courts are framing the issue

To vacate a conviction a judge typically must find a legal defect that undermines the validity of the conviction — such as jurisdictional error, prejudicial misconduct, or that evidence was improperly admitted in light of binding precedent. The news items show Trump’s lawyers are arguing the Manhattan conviction was infected by admission of evidence tied to “official acts,” invoking the Supreme Court’s immunity decision, and asking courts to set aside the conviction or move the case to federal court for reconsideration ^{[3] [1]}. The appellate instruction to “reconsider” jurisdiction reflects that judges are weighing those precise legal grounds ^[1].

3. The key example in reporting: the Manhattan “hush‑money” case

Multiple pieces of reporting focus on Trump’s May 2024 conviction in Manhattan for concealing a $130,000 payment and the subsequent legal maneuvers. The trial judge, Juan Merchan, imposed an unconditional discharge — leaving the conviction on the books but no jail time — and later panels and briefs have pressed whether the conviction should be reexamined under the Supreme Court’s immunity precedent ^{[1] [2]}. A 2nd Circuit panel ordered District Judge Alvin Hellerstein to take a closer look at whether the immunity ruling pushes parts of the case into federal jurisdiction; that order gives Trump another path to potentially erase or move the conviction but does not itself vacate it ^{[1] [2]}.

4. Legal reasons being advanced to undo convictions (as reported)

Trump’s appellate teams argue the Manhattan trial “repeatedly erred in admitting evidence of President Trump’s official acts as President,” including testimony from aides, and that the Supreme Court’s 2024 immunity ruling creates a presumption that such official‑capacity acts are immune from prosecution — a theory they say merits vacatur or transfer to federal court ^{[3] [1]}. Appellate judges have signaled those arguments warrant closer district‑court examination, but available reporting does not indicate courts have accepted them as grounds to vacate a conviction yet ^{[1] [2]}.

5. Competing perspectives and limits of the record

Reporting shows judicial skepticism and competing views: while Trump’s lawyers press immunity and admission‑of‑evidence claims, trial and other judges previously rejected federal‑court removals or similar arguments ^[2]. The news also records that some judges— including those appointed by Trump in other contexts—have rebuked what they saw as meritless filings in other Trump litigation, illustrating that courts are not uniformly receptive to broad immunity arguments ^[4]. Crucially, the set of sources supplied contains no direct example of a judge vacating any of Trump’s convictions, so claims that convictions have already been vacated are not supported here (not found in current reporting).

6. What to watch next

Given the appellate direction to reconsider jurisdiction and the appeals briefs relying on the Supreme Court’s immunity decision, the most likely near‑term outcomes reported are (a) district judges revisiting whether immunity requires moving cases to federal court, and (b) conventional appeals that could take years ^{[1] [2]}. Any future vacatur would be the product of those processes; none is recorded in the present reporting (not found in current reporting).

Limitations: this analysis relies only on the supplied items and does not incorporate reporting outside them; if you want, I can search more widely for any later orders or vacaturs not covered in these sources.