A federal judge on Friday again rejected President Donald Trump’s attempt to move his already-decided New York hush-money case into federal court, ruling that the prosecution concerned private conduct rather than acts carried out under presidential authority.

U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein’s decision keeps Trump’s 34-count falsifying-business-records conviction in New York’s state court system. Trump received an unconditional discharge in January 2025, meaning he was given no jail time, probation or fine, but the conviction remained on the books.

Trump’s attorneys filed notice that they intend to appeal the latest federal ruling. He is also pursuing a separate appeal of the conviction through New York’s state courts.

What the judge decided

The federal dispute is about where the case belongs and whether presidential immunity gives Trump a basis to undo the verdict—not whether a new jury should reconsider the evidence.

Trump argued that the case should be moved to federal court because prosecutors introduced evidence connected to his first presidency. His lawyers pointed to the Supreme Court’s 2024 presidential-immunity decision, which protects presidents from prosecution for official acts and restricts the use of official-act evidence in cases involving private conduct.

Hellerstein rejected that argument. He concluded that the prosecution arose from efforts to conceal a $130,000 payment made to adult-film performer Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election and the later reimbursement of Trump attorney Michael Cohen through records maintained by the Trump Organization.

“The People’s prosecution arises from President Trump’s private conduct,” Hellerstein wrote.

The judge found that testimony and records touching Trump’s time in the White House did not transform the underlying conduct into an official presidential act. Paying hush money or covering up a private embarrassment, he concluded, was not part of the presidency.

Trump has denied Daniels’ account of a sexual encounter and has maintained that the prosecution brought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg was politically motivated.

Why this ruling came back before Hellerstein

Hellerstein had already declined to move the case to federal court at two earlier stages.

He first rejected removal after Trump’s 2023 indictment, finding that the alleged conduct did not arise from presidential duties. He denied another attempt after the May 2024 verdict, when Trump returned to federal court following the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals later directed Hellerstein to take a closer look at whether intervening Supreme Court decisions changed the analysis. Friday’s ruling is the result of that appellate review.

That history is why “again” is more accurate than describing Friday’s decision simply as a second rejection. Hellerstein has now declined to federalize the case three times, although the latest decision revisited issues raised in Trump’s post-conviction effort rather than beginning a new criminal proceeding.

The timing argument also failed

Hellerstein separately found that Trump waited too long to pursue the latest removal effort.

Federal law sets strict deadlines for transferring a state criminal prosecution into federal court. Trump argued that the Supreme Court’s immunity decision and later case law supplied new grounds for removal after his conviction.

The judge found that those developments did not excuse the delay and did not establish the required connection between the prosecution and Trump’s federal office. His opinion said the request lacked both legal sufficiency and the diligence needed to justify another late attempt.

The decision therefore rests on two related conclusions: the removal request was untimely, and the underlying conduct was private even after applying the Supreme Court decisions Trump cited.

What the ruling does—and does not—change

The ruling does not impose a new sentence, reopen the trial or add another criminal conviction.

It also does not end every legal challenge available to Trump. His lawyers can appeal Hellerstein’s decision to the 2nd Circuit, and his direct challenge to the verdict continues in New York’s appellate courts.

What Friday’s decision does is close the federal district-court route for now. Unless an appeals court reverses Hellerstein, the case remains a New York state conviction.

Trump was found guilty in May 2024 on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. In January 2025, state Judge Juan Merchan imposed an unconditional discharge, leaving the conviction intact while avoiding incarceration, probation or financial penalties shortly before Trump began his second term.

A legal setback, but not the final appeal

The latest ruling is a clear setback for Trump’s effort to use federal jurisdiction and presidential immunity to erase the conviction. It is not, however, the final word on his broader appeal.

The central dispute will now continue on two tracks: whether Hellerstein correctly refused federal removal and whether the state conviction itself should survive appellate review.

Trump’s legal team said it would file what it called a powerful appeal and continue challenging a prosecution it views as partisan. Bragg’s office has defended the verdict as the lawful result of a jury trial.

For readers, the most important distinction is procedural. Friday’s ruling did not decide Trump’s guilt a second time. It decided that the case does not belong in federal court and that the conduct identified by prosecutors was not protected as an official act of the presidency.

Unless a higher court disagrees, the conviction stays where it began: in New York.

Sources and further reading