Appeals Court Revives Trump’s Challenge Against Hush Money Case

Thu Nov 06 2025 23:27:32 GMT+0200 (Eastern European Standard Time)

A federal appeals court empowers Donald Trump’s efforts to challenge his hush money conviction, suggesting reconsideration of key evidence and the jurisdiction of his case.

In a significant ruling, a three-judge panel from the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has revived former President Donald Trump's efforts to contest his hush money conviction. The court directed a lower judge to reconsider evidence that may relate to Trump's presidential duties. This decision allows for the possibility of transferring his case from state court to federal court, where Trump seeks to assert presidential immunity. The judges emphasized the importance of reviewing the evidence presented during the trial to determine its relevance to Trump's official actions while in office.

A recent ruling by a federal appeals court has brought renewed focus to Donald Trump's ongoing legal battles, particularly his conviction related to payments made to silence allegations during his presidency. On Thursday, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided to allow Trump another chance by instructing a lower court to reexamine evidence linked to his claims of presidential immunity.

The three-judge panel identified errors made by U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein, who had previously ruled against Trump's attempts to move the case from state jurisdiction. According to the appeals court, Hellerstein did not adequately address critical evidence that might pertain to whether Trump's actions were official duties as president.

The decision from the appeals court came after a hearing where arguments were made regarding whether Trump's conviction for falsifying business records should be viewed through the lens of official presidential conduct. The judges did not express an opinion on the outcome but highlighted the need for a thorough review of the evidence.

Trump’s legal team had asserted that evidence presented in the state trial involved his official acts and that his conviction should, therefore, be reconsidered within a federal court system. The judges also pointed out that should Hellerstein determine the prosecution relied on evidence of official acts, it would warrant a re-evaluation of jurisdiction.

A critical aspect of the court's ruling emphasized that Hellerstein failed to consider whether the evidence used against Trump could have been admitted due to the context of his executive duties, which might afford him immunity. The ruling is a significant step in Trump's ongoing legal challenges, allowing him to potentially shift his case, which revolves around payments to adult film actress Stormy Daniels, into a different legal arena with different implications for his defense.

Trump, who was convicted in May 2024 for various counts related to falsifying business records, maintains that he did nothing improper regarding the payments made to Daniels. As the case moves forward, legal experts highlight the ramifications this could have for Trump's broader legal strategy and his subsequent attempts to clear his name.