Which courts have heard appeals of Trump's felony cases and what were their rulings?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Multiple appellate tribunals — state and federal — have already weighed in on Donald Trump’s post‑conviction and related litigation, producing mixed outcomes: federal appeals judges in the Second Circuit have granted him new procedural avenues to press immunity arguments and ordered reconsideration of lower‑court denials, while New York state appellate courts have been the forum for his direct criminal appeal and for civil fraud penalty reductions; separately, a Georgia trial judge dismissed the racketeering prosecution after prosecutors moved to drop the case [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. Federal appeals in Manhattan: Second Circuit revived Trump’s bid to press immunity arguments
A three‑judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled in November 2025 that a federal district judge — U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein — had not adequately considered whether certain trial evidence in the Manhattan hush‑money prosecution implicated presidential immunity, and sent the matter back for further consideration, effectively giving Trump another chance to seek removal of the state case to federal court and to press immunity defenses [5] [6] [1].
2. Federal district court gatekeeping: Hellerstein’s earlier denials and the issues sent back by the appeals court
Hellerstein had previously denied Trump’s motions to move the New York state prosecution into federal court, finding the charged conduct largely “private unofficial acts,” but the Second Circuit concluded the district court hadn’t sufficiently examined whether specific evidence admitted at trial related to immunized official acts and instructed a closer review — the panel explicitly avoided deciding the immunity question itself [6] [1].
3. New York state appellate process: First Department and the direct appeal of the felony conviction
After his 2024 conviction on 34 counts of falsifying business records in Manhattan, Trump filed a direct appeal in New York’s intermediate appellate court (the Appellate Division, First Department) and asked that court to overturn the conviction; that state appellate pathway remains the central route for challenging his criminal verdict and sentencing decisions in state court [2] [7].
4. State trial judge and sentencing: Judge Juan Merchan’s role and post‑trial motions
The conviction was rendered in New York Supreme Court (the state trial court for felonies) before Judge Juan Merchan, who sentenced Trump to an unconditional discharge after delays and motions; Merchan denied multiple defense requests during the trial phase, including recusal petitions and earlier motions to dismiss, and those denials are among the rulings being litigated on appeal [8] [2] [7].
5. Georgia racketeering case: dismissal at the trial level after prosecutors moved to drop charges
In Fulton County, Georgia, Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee dismissed the racketeering indictment against Trump in November 2025 after the state prosecutor, Peter Skandalakis, moved to drop the remaining charges to serve “the interests of justice and promote judicial finality,” a development that effectively ended that criminal prosecution without an appellate reversal at that moment [4].
6. Civil appeals intersecting with criminal litigation: New York appellate trimming of monetary penalties
On the civil front, a New York appeals panel in August 2025 affirmed liability findings in the state civil fraud case against Trump and others but found the trial court’s financial penalties excessive and reduced or struck the larger monetary award, sending parts of the remedy question up toward the state’s highest court — a mixed appellate result that left liability intact while narrowing punishment [3] [9].
7. Broader federal appellate rulings with collateral impact
Other federal appellate decisions — including rulings on related appointment and procedural contests — have altered the legal landscape surrounding Trump’s cases, such as a federal appeals court finding that a presidential maneuver to install a particular U.S. attorney violated law, signaling that appellate courts are willing to scrutinize executive actions that touch prosecution machinery even when not tied directly to felony appeal merits [10].