October 28, 2025
Trump appealed his 34-count hush money conviction in October 2025, arguing that the Supreme Court's June 2024 presidential immunity ruling tainted the trial evidence and that federal election law pre-empts New York state from prosecuting campaign finance violations at all.
Trump filed his appeal of the hush money conviction in October 2025, raising presidential immunity and federal preemption
The Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. United States (June 2024) that presidents have broad immunity for official acts
Trump argues Hope Hicks testimony and his presidential tweets were official-act evidence improperly admitted at trial
Federal preemption argument: if the underlying crime is a federal election law violation, only federal prosecutors can charge it, not a state DA
The Second Circuit revived Trump bid to move the appeal to federal court in November 2025 and sent it to Judge Hellerstein for further analysis
As of early 2026, Trump's conviction stands while appeals proceed simultaneously in state and federal courts
Appellant
Manhattan District Attorney
Trial Judge
Federal District Judge
Former White House communications director
research
Follow the dual-track hush money appeal through state and federal court dockets
The dual-track appeal is an unprecedented legal situation: the same conviction being challenged simultaneously in state appellate court and federal circuit court. Following both tracks gives citizens a real-time view of how different courts interpret the same legal questions.
Presidential immunity doctrine is still being defined by courts — the Trump v. United States ruling created broad but not unlimited immunity for official acts, and courts are deciding case-by-case what counts as an official act. Citizens can follow Trump's dual-track appeal in both New York state court (Appellate Division, First Department) at nycourts.gov and the federal Second Circuit at ca2.uscourts.gov. Go to each court's public portal and search for the case. Following both tracks simultaneously shows how state and federal courts handle the same immunity and preemption arguments — and whether they reach different conclusions.
research
Understand federal preemption and when state prosecution overlaps with federal law
The preemption doctrine affects which court system has authority over conduct that touches both state and federal law. Understanding it gives citizens a framework for evaluating jurisdictional arguments that often get lost in political coverage.
Federal preemption limits what states can prosecute when federal law already covers the same conduct. Read the Constitution Annotated's analysis of the Supremacy Clause at constitution.congress.gov to understand when state and federal law overlap and how courts decide which one governs. Trump's legal team argued that because the hush money case involved federal election law, state courts had no jurisdiction. Understanding when this argument succeeds and when it fails helps citizens evaluate complex criminal cases where defendants argue they belong in federal court.
research
Track how the Supreme Court's immunity ruling is being applied to state prosecutions through SCOTUSblog
The immunity ruling's scope is being tested in every major Trump-related prosecution. Tracking SCOTUSblog gives citizens the clearest real-time picture of where the doctrine is expanding and where courts are drawing limits.
Follow the presidential immunity doctrine's application to state prosecutions through SCOTUSblog at scotusblog.com. Search for 'Trump immunity state prosecution' to track cases where defendants argue the immunity doctrine should extend to state criminal charges. The Supreme Court's immunity ruling was issued in the context of federal prosecution, but courts are now deciding whether and how it applies to state cases. SCOTUSblog publishes accessible analysis within hours of major rulings and tracks pending cert petitions that could bring these questions to the Supreme Court.