Judge Rules Trump’s Stormy Daniels Hush Money Discussions Were Not Official Presidential Acts
A federal judge has once again rejected President Donald Trump’s attempt to move his New York criminal hush money case from state court to federal court, dealing another setback to his efforts to overturn his conviction.
.jpg)
US District Judge Alvin Hellerstein ruled Friday that the arguments presented by Trump’s legal team were “neither new nor legally sufficient.” The judge had previously rejected Trump’s request, but was ordered by a federal appeals court to reconsider the matter following the US Supreme Court’s landmark 2024 ruling on presidential immunity.
Hellerstein said the conduct at the center of the case involved Trump’s private affairs and had no meaningful connection to his responsibilities as president.
“The People’s prosecution arises from President Trump’s private conduct surrounding the reimbursement of hush money payments to an adult film star,” Hellerstein wrote in his ruling. He added that treating such conduct as related to the presidency would make the definition of an official presidential act excessively broad.
The judge was particularly direct about the discussions surrounding payments to Stormy Daniels, saying there was no basis to consider them part of Trump’s official duties.
.jpg)
“There is no way that discussions regarding hush money payments to cover up the President’s relations with Stormy Daniels could be an official act,” Hellerstein wrote. He said that an affair or an attempt to conceal one does not fall within the “outer perimeter” of a president’s official responsibilities.
Trump’s lawyers immediately appealed the decision. His legal team argued that the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity ruling, along with federal and state constitutional protections, should have resulted in the case being transferred to federal court and ultimately dismissed.
Trump was convicted in 2024 on 34 counts of falsifying business records related to payments made to Daniels during the 2016 presidential campaign. Prosecutors alleged that Trump participated in a scheme to conceal the payment by reimbursing his former lawyer, Michael Cohen, who arranged the payment.
Although Trump was found guilty, he received an unconditional discharge, meaning he was not ordered to pay a fine, serve probation or face imprisonment. Nevertheless, the conviction made him the first former or sitting US president to be convicted of a felony.
.jpg)
Trump’s defense has argued that presidential immunity should protect him from prosecution for conduct connected to his time in office. The Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling established broad protections for presidents from criminal prosecution over official acts, while making clear that private conduct does not receive the same protection.
Hellerstein rejected Trump’s argument that actions involving White House employees could transform the underlying conduct into official presidential business. The judge noted that presidential aides can also perform personal or unofficial tasks for the president.
The judge also pointed to the timing of Trump’s renewed attempt to move the case. After the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling, Trump first asked New York state Judge Juan Merchan to dismiss his conviction. Merchan rejected that request, and Trump’s appeal remains active in the state court system.
Hellerstein said Trump’s decision to pursue relief in state court before returning to federal court amounted to a strategic choice. He concluded that Trump could not later use his dissatisfaction with that strategy as a justification for filing the federal removal request late.
.jpg)
Trump’s appeal of his conviction continues through New York’s appellate courts. If unsuccessful, the case could eventually reach the New York Court of Appeals and potentially the US Supreme Court.
For now, Hellerstein’s ruling leaves Trump facing the conviction in state court while his legal team continues to pursue multiple avenues to challenge the case.