The Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued a surprising decision on Thursday, overturning a lower court’s ruling that rejected President Donald Trump’s attempts to transfer the New York criminal case against him from state court to federal court.
Hold on tight, because this procedural roller coaster deserves a play-by-play. As everyone remembers, Donald Trump was convicted in May 2024 on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in a New York state court — the handiwork of Manhattan D.A. Alvin Bragg. Bragg’s case claimed that Trump conspired to sway the 2016 election by having his then-lawyer, Michael Cohen, pay $130,000 in hush money to adult film star Stormy Daniels to keep quiet about an alleged encounter. The trial, overseen by Judge Juan Merchan, ended with Trump being found guilty on every single count.
But then — in true Trump-era fashion — the legal landscape shifted dramatically. The Supreme Court dropped its bombshell ruling on presidential immunity, fundamentally redrawing the lines between official acts and personal conduct.
Here’s where it gets interesting. Trump had already tried once to move the case out of state court and into federal court — that attempt failed. But after Trump v. United States came down in July 2024, he saw an opening. Armed with the high court’s new definition of presidential immunity, Trump’s legal team argued that the New York prosecution now involved acts “relating to” his duties as president. That, they said, gave him both the right — and “good cause” — to take another swing at moving the case to federal court.
U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein shut down Trump’s renewed bid in September 2024, seemingly closing the door on the move to federal court. But Trump being Trump, he didn’t stop there. He took the fight to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, which heard arguments this past June.
And on Thursday, the 2nd Circuit threw Hellerstein’s ruling right back at him — determining that the lower court had failed to properly consider Trump’s renewed motion. In other words, the appeals panel essentially said, “Not so fast”:
The District Court denied leave, concluding, among other things, that “good cause” had not been shown for the delay in seeking removal a second time. We cannot be confident that in doing so, the District Court adequately considered issues relevant to the good cause inquiry so as to enable meaningful appellate review. Those issues include but are not limited to the impact of Trump v. United States on the removability of the underlying state prosecution. For example, the District Court did not consider whether certain evidence admitted during the state court trial relates to immunized official acts or, if so, whether evidentiary immunity transformed the State’s case into one that relates to acts under color of the Presidency. Nor did the District Court consider whether any notice of removal of a criminal prosecution under § 1455(b)(1) must be filed before trial even if new grounds for removal arise during or after trial. We therefore VACATE the District Court’s order denying Trump’s motion for leave to file a second notice of removal and REMAND for reconsideration of the motion consistent with this opinion.
So what does that mean in plain English? It means the district court now has to take another look at Trump’s argument — specifically, whether the case should’ve been moved to federal court in the first place.
If the court decides it was improperly tried in state court, that opens the door to a massive reversal. In theory, the entire conviction could be tossed. That’s not a sure thing — but it’s absolutely on the table now.
We’ll keep you posted.
