What is the current status of Trump’s New York hush‑money conviction appeals and motions?

1. Federal appeals panel reopens jurisdiction fight

A federal appeals court on Nov. 6, 2025 gave President Trump a partial win by directing a district judge to reconsider earlier refusals to transfer the case to federal court, concluding the lower court had not fully assessed whether evidence admitted at trial implicated immunized “official acts” and whether that could transform the case into a federal matter — a ruling that reanimated a strategy to erase or displace the New York conviction ^{[1] [4] [5]}.

2. Parallel state‑court appeal of the conviction continues

Separately, Trump filed and is pursuing a standard New York state appeal seeking to overturn the 34 felony falsified‑business‑records convictions that stem from the Stormy Daniels payment; that appeal was lodged months after his notice to appeal in early 2025 and remains active in the New York appellate system even as the federal jurisdiction question proceeds ^{[6] [7] [3]}.

3. The DOJ’s surprising alignment with Trump’s immunity argument

In a notable development, the U.S. Department of Justice adopted arguments aligned with Trump’s view, filing that the conviction should be thrown out because evidence tied to “official acts” and a legal theory preempted by federal law infected the trial; that federal filing bolsters the federal‑court transfer theory and adds weight to the argument that some evidentiary issues “can never be harmless” ^[2].

4. Prior rulings and judicial posture that the appeals panel has asked courts to revisit

Judge Alvin Hellerstein and Judge Juan Merchan previously denied efforts to move or set aside the case, finding the conduct was largely personal, that immunity did not bar prosecution, and that Trump had not met the burden to change jurisdiction; the appeals panel said those rulings did not fully analyze whether some admitted evidence related to immunized official acts, prompting a remand for reassessment ^{[1] [8] [3]}.

5. Timing, oral arguments, and practical consequence — what’s at stake now

Oral argument schedules and multi‑layered review mean resolution could stretch for years: the 2nd Circuit had set argument dates earlier in 2025 for aspects of the litigation, and state appeals timelines also proceed slowly; if a federal court were to accept the transfer or if an appellate court finds the immunity/preemption arguments persuasive, the conviction could be vacated or retried, but the appeals court remand at this stage simply reopens questions rather than resolving them in Trump’s favor outright ^{[9] [1] [2]}.

6. Competing narratives, stakes and institutional agendas

Prosecutors in Manhattan press that the underlying payments and false entries were private conduct and that the immunity line drawn by the Supreme Court should not erase a state jury’s verdict, reflecting an interest in preserving state criminal enforcement; by contrast, the Trump team — now with new appellate counsel in some filings — and the DOJ’s unexpected concurrence emphasize separation‑of‑powers and immunities that could limit state prosecutions of presidential conduct, an outcome that shields the sitting president and advances federal institutional prerogatives ^{[10] [3] [2]}.

7. Bottom line: active, unsettled, and impactful on the rule of law

The current status is that multiple appellate tracks are live: a federal appeals panel has sent the jurisdictional immunity question back for reconsideration, the state‑court appeal of the conviction continues, and the DOJ has urged vacatur — together these maneuvers keep the conviction legally unsettled and preserve several paths by which the verdict could be affirmed, narrowed, or undone, but no appellate court has yet issued a final decision that reverses the underlying jury verdict ^{[1] [2] [3]}.