What specific charges in each Trump conviction are being appealed and on what legal grounds?
Executive summary
President Trump is appealing his May 2024 New York conviction on 34 felony counts of first‑degree falsifying business records, arguing key trial evidence concerned “official acts” protected by the Supreme Court’s presidential‑immunity decision and therefore should have been excluded or moved to federal court [1] [2]. Federal appeals judges have given that immunity theory new life, ordering reconsideration of whether the case (or parts of it) belong in federal court and whether admitting evidence tied to official acts was reversible error [3] [4].
1. The conviction being appealed: 34 counts of falsifying business records
Trump was convicted by a Manhattan jury in May 2024 on 34 felony counts alleging falsification of business records related to a hush‑money payment; that judgment is the subject of his state‑court appeal and parallel federal‑court maneuvering [1] [5].
2. Core appellate claim: presidential immunity for “official acts”
The centerpiece of Trump’s appeal is that the Supreme Court’s later ruling on presidential immunity immunizes certain official‑act evidence. His lawyers argue the trial “repeatedly erred in admitting evidence of President Trump’s official acts as President,” including testimony from White House aides, and that such evidence tainted the verdict [2] [3].
3. What evidence Trump’s lawyers say was improper
Trump’s brief specifically points to trial exhibits and witness testimony that the defense says derived from his presidency — social‑media posts and testimony from former aides such as Hope Hicks — characterizing those items as linked to “official acts” that the immunity ruling renders off‑limits for state prosecution [2] [6].
4. The legal remedies Trump seeks: reversal or removal to federal court
Two remedies appear in play: (a) vacatur of the convictions on the ground that immunized evidence was wrongly admitted, and (b) removal of the prosecution to federal court for resolution under federal immunity law — a procedural strategy revived by a federal appeals panel that ordered lower courts to reconsider removability after earlier denials [3] [4].
5. How lower courts have responded so far
Judge Juan Merchan initially rejected immunity‑based challenges and denied removal requests, and he later imposed an unconditional discharge in sentencing while leaving the conviction intact; the state appellate process remains active. A federal appeals court, however, said the lower judge failed to fully assess whether certain admitted evidence related to immunized official acts and ordered further consideration, reopening the pathway for federal removal review [4] [3] [7].
6. The Justice Department’s unexpected alignment
In a notable development, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a brief endorsing aspects of Trump’s position, arguing the conviction should be thrown out because it relied on improper evidence and on a legal theory preempted by federal law — signaling an unusual federal posture supporting removal or reversal on immunity grounds [8].
7. What appellate success would (and would not) accomplish
If an appellate court finds that admission of immunized evidence was prejudicial, it could reverse convictions or order a new trial excluding that evidence, or it could find the case removable to federal court for immunity adjudication. Available sources do not detail other grounds on appeal beyond immunity and related procedural errors such as alleged judicial recusal failures [3] [2].
8. Competing viewpoints and limits of current reporting
Prosecutors (Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg’s office) have defended the verdict, contending the falsifying‑records charges concern Trump’s personal conduct, not shielded official acts; they maintain the immunity ruling does not nullify the convictions [3]. Not all sources agree on the likely outcome; the appeals court expressly took no position on ultimate success, saying only that lower courts did not adequately consider removability and immunity questions [9] [6]. Available sources do not give the full text of Trump’s appellate brief or a point‑by‑point map of every legal claim beyond immunity and evidentiary/removal arguments [2] [3].
9. Political and procedural stakes implicit in the filings
The appeal interlocks legal and political stakes: a successful immunity argument could erase the first felony conviction of a U.S. president, and federal involvement raises separation‑of‑powers issues critics say could privilege incumbency. Some filings frame the case as politically charged; Trump’s lawyers call it a “witch hunt,” while federal courts emphasize narrow procedural review rather than making constitutional pronouncements at the outset [6] [3].
10. What to watch next
Watch whether Judge Hellerstein or the state appellate court reopens removal to federal court and whether a federal judge concludes evidence admitted at trial qualifies as immunized “official acts.” Also watch the Manhattan DA’s formal responses in the state appeals court and whether higher courts — including the Supreme Court — are asked to resolve remaining immunity scope questions [4] [3] [8]. Available sources do not report final appellate rulings resolving those specific immunity or removal claims as of the latest coverage [4] [3].