What is the current appellate status of the New York hush‑money convictions against Donald Trump?
Executive summary
Donald Trump’s May 2024 conviction on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records remains under active appeal in New York’s state courts while a parallel federal removal effort — premised on presidential immunity and the use of allegedly “official” evidence at trial — has been resurrected by a federal appeals panel, which ordered reconsideration of a lower court’s refusal to transfer the case to federal court [1] [2]. The U.S. Department of Justice has intervened, urging that the conviction should be thrown out on immunity and evidentiary-preemption grounds, even as Trump’s state appeal proceeds after his January post‑conviction, no‑penalty sentence [2] [3] [4].
1. Current posture — what is being appealed and where
The direct appellate path in state court is an appeal of the New York conviction and related rulings after Trump’s lawyers filed a notice of appeal in January 2025 following his sentencing [4] [5], and various filings to state appellate panels seeking reversal on grounds including judge recusal, evidentiary errors, and the application of presidential immunity [6] [7]. Simultaneously, Trump has pursued a separate procedural strategy to move the case into federal court on the theory that evidence admitted at trial related to official acts and thus is governed by the Supreme Court’s immunity framework — a removal bid that was recently revived by an appeals panel that ordered a lower court to reconsider earlier denials [1] [8].
2. The federal removal/immunity fight that could undo the conviction
The legal fulcrum of the removal effort is presidential immunity: Trump’s team argues certain admitted evidence showed official acts subject to immunity and therefore the state prosecution was preempted. A federal appeals court panel concluded a district judge should reconsider his earlier decision refusing to transfer the matter, explicitly noting the lower court had not fully addressed whether some trial evidence related to immunized official acts and whether that transformation required federal jurisdiction — a ruling that gives Trump a renewed pathway to seek dismissal if a federal court finds immunity applies [1] [2]. The U.S. government, unusually, filed that the conviction should be thrown out because of improper evidence and preemption, adopting arguments aligned with Trump’s immunity theory and asserting that introducing such evidence “can never be harmless” [2].
3. The state appeal continues on traditional grounds
Independently of the removal bid, the state appellate process is moving: Trump’s appeal in the New York intermediate appellate court challenges substantive trial and procedural rulings that produced the guilty verdict — issues that state appeals courts have already considered and that the defense has repeatedly raised, including contesting the judge’s rulings about evidence and juror instructions [6] [7]. Earlier interventions at the Supreme Court level left sentencing to proceed, with the high court noting those evidentiary complaints could be addressed on appeal, underscoring that the state appellate track remains an active and distinct forum for relief [9].
4. Recent rulings and timing — what courts have done so far
Key recent steps include the federal appeals court’s November 2025 order reviving the removal route and directing a district judge to reexamine the jurisdiction question [1] [2] [8], the DOJ’s November 2025 filing urging vacatur of the conviction on immunity and evidentiary-preemption grounds [2], and earlier actions in 2025 that allowed sentencing to proceed and left appellate review as the vehicle to raise immunity and evidence complaints [9]. Oral argument scheduling has also been part of the docket cadence — the 2nd Circuit had set argument dates in mid‑2025 for related appeals — but the federal removal order adds a new layer that could accelerate or reroute relief depending on how judges resolve jurisdictional and immunity questions [10] [1].
5. What could happen next and the stakes
Courts could take several paths: the district judge could refuse to transfer on remand, keeping the matter in state appellate channels; the federal court could accept jurisdiction and then consider whether immunity preempts the state conviction, potentially vacating it; or state appellate courts could reverse on other grounds — each outcome would carry complex legal and political consequences and could reshape how immunity is applied in prosecutions of a president’s alleged pre‑office conduct [1] [2] [6]. Reporting shows both conventional state‑law appellate arguments and the extraordinary immunity/removal theory are live and advancing, and the DOJ’s intervention makes the novel federal route particularly consequential even as the traditional state appeal continues [2] [4].