UPDATE: In a significant legal development, the Second United States Appeals Court has ruled unanimously in favor of Donald Trump, potentially paving the way for the dismissal of his 34 felony convictions linked to the Stormy Daniels case. This urgent ruling comes as Trump seeks to assert presidential immunity in federal court, a move that could reshape the landscape of his ongoing legal battles.
The three-judge panel, comprised entirely of Democratic appointees, has directed Judge Alvin Hellerstein to reevaluate whether he adequately considered crucial issues regarding the presidential immunity defense. The ruling raises the stakes for Trump, who has previously faced setbacks in his attempts to transfer the case, prosecuted by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, to a federal jurisdiction.
In a pivotal statement, the Second Circuit indicated that Judge Hellerstein may need to solicit further input from the involved parties or hold a hearing to clarify these issues. The panel refrained from hinting at a specific resolution but emphasized the importance of a thorough review. This ruling marks a notable victory for Trump, whose legal strategy hinges on whether certain actions, including payments made to Daniels, qualify for federal immunity protections.
Judge Hellerstein had previously determined that Trump’s case did not belong in federal court, arguing that the payments were “private unofficial acts” unrelated to his presidential duties. However, the appellate court found his reasoning lacking, suggesting that evidence from former aide Hope Hicks could play a critical role in determining the applicability of presidential immunity.
As Trump continues to challenge his convictions, he is also appealing to New York’s intermediate appellate court, arguing that the trial judge’s rejection of his immunity claim is flawed. Moreover, Trump has called for Judge Hellerstein to recuse himself due to perceived bias, highlighting the judge’s past political contributions and connections.
In the ongoing trial, Judge Juan Merchan has ruled against Trump’s immunity claim, maintaining that the case revolves around private actions. Trump’s defense argues that jury instructions during the trial violated the Supreme Court precedent set in Ramos v. Louisiana, which mandates that a unanimous jury is required for felony convictions.
This latest ruling holds immediate implications, as it could shift the venue of Trump’s legal proceedings to a federal court, which many believe could be more favorable to him. Federal courts typically draw jurors from a broader and more politically diverse pool compared to state courts, particularly in heavily Democratic areas like Manhattan.
As Trump navigates this complex legal landscape, observers are closely watching for further developments. The case’s trajectory could significantly impact Trump’s political future and his ongoing campaign efforts as he prepares for the upcoming election cycle.
Stay tuned for more updates on this developing story.
