Late Thursday, former President Donald Trump petitioned a federal court to intervene in his New York hush money criminal case, aiming to overturn his felony conviction and postpone his sentencing, currently scheduled for next month.
Trump’s attorneys requested that the federal court in Manhattan take over the case from the state court where it was tried, arguing that the prosecution violated his constitutional rights and conflicted with a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity.
The defense team, which had unsuccessfully sought to move the case to federal court before the trial, argued that relocating the case now would provide Trump with an “impartial forum, free from local hostilities.” They claimed that Trump had faced “bias, conflicts of interest, and appearances of impropriety” in state court.
Should the case be transferred to federal court, Trump’s lawyers intend to seek a dismissal of the verdict based on immunity grounds. However, if it remains in state court and sentencing proceeds as planned on September 18—approximately seven weeks before Election Day—Trump’s legal team argues this would constitute election interference, potentially leading to his incarceration as early voting begins.
“The ongoing proceedings will continue to cause direct and irreparable harm to President Trump — the leading candidate in the 2024 Presidential election — and voters located far beyond Manhattan,” Trump’s attorneys Todd Blanche and Emil Bove stated in a 64-page filing to the U.S. District Court.
The Manhattan district attorney’s office, responsible for prosecuting Trump’s case and opposing the earlier effort to move it to federal court, declined to comment, as did a spokesperson for New York’s state court system.
Trump was convicted in May on 34 felony counts related to falsifying business records to conceal a $130,000 hush money payment to porn actor Stormy Daniels, who alleged an affair that threatened his 2016 presidential campaign. Michael Cohen, Trump’s former lawyer, made the payment to Daniels and was later reimbursed by Trump, with the payments recorded as legal expenses by Trump’s company. Trump maintains that the affair allegations are false, the reimbursements were for legitimate legal services, and that the prosecution is part of a politically motivated “witch hunt.”
Even if the case is not moved to federal court, the ongoing legal proceedings could delay Trump’s sentencing, giving him crucial time to navigate his criminal conviction and continue his campaign for the presidency.
Meanwhile, Judge Juan M. Merchan is considering Trump’s requests to delay sentencing until after Election Day on November 5 and to dismiss the case in light of the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on presidential immunity.
The Supreme Court’s July 1 ruling limits prosecutions of former presidents for official acts and restricts using such acts as evidence for unrelated offenses. Trump’s attorneys argue that prosecutors should have delayed the trial until after the Supreme Court’s decision and that the trial was “tainted” by improperly admitted evidence, such as testimony from former White House staffers and Trump’s tweets during his presidency.
Trump’s lawyers had previously cited presidential immunity in an unsuccessful attempt to transfer the hush money case to federal court. U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein rejected this argument, stating that the charges were unrelated to Trump’s official duties, describing the matter as “a purely personal item” to cover up an embarrassing event.
Trump’s defense team argued in Thursday’s filing that circumstances had changed since their initial attempt was rejected. They claimed that state prosecutors misled the court by initially stating the trial wouldn’t involve Trump’s presidential duties.
The filing also referenced testimony about Trump’s potential use of his pardon power and his responses to investigations, which they argued pertained to his actions as president.
“President Trump is entitled to a federal forum for his Presidential immunity defense based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. United States,” Blanche and Bove argued. They expressed confidence that the charges would be dismissed if the case were moved to federal court.
The lawyers also reiterated their allegations that Judge Merchan has shown bias against Trump due to his daughter’s political consulting work for Democrats and criticized the judge for maintaining a gag order on Trump following the verdict.
Earlier this month, Merchan denied Trump’s request to recuse himself, dismissing the request as a repetition filled with inaccuracies and baseless claims about his impartiality. A state appeals court recently upheld the gag order.
Blanche and Bove contended, “Merchan is poised to incarcerate President Trump in the final weeks of the campaign, and he has maintained an unwarranted and unconstitutional prior restraint on President Trump’s ability to respond to political attacks by criticizing the New York County proceedings.”
