Judge rules Stormy Daniels payoff discussions were personal, rejecting Trump's bid to move conviction into federal court
By Farman Qureshi I SCN NEWS
NEW YORK — A federal judge on Friday rejected President Donald Trump's latest attempt to move his New York hush-money case into federal court, ruling that discussions surrounding payments to Stormy Daniels and efforts to conceal personal embarrassment could not be transformed into official presidential conduct merely because some occurred while Trump occupied the White House. U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein reaffirmed his earlier conclusion that the prosecution arose from Trump's private conduct and said the Supreme Court's landmark 2024 presidential-immunity decision did not provide a basis for transferring the already-decided state case into the federal system.
Trump was convicted by a Manhattan jury in May 2024 on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records connected to the concealment of a $130,000 payment made by his former lawyer Michael Cohen to adult-film actor Stormy Daniels, whose legal name is Stephanie Clifford. Daniels alleged she had a sexual encounter with Trump in 2006, something Trump has denied. Prosecutors said the payment was made before the 2016 presidential election to prevent her account from becoming public and that business records were later falsified as Cohen was reimbursed.
The latest federal fight was not principally over whether Trump personally enjoyed immunity from prosecution for making the original payment before becoming president. Instead, Trump's lawyers argued that the trial was constitutionally compromised because prosecutors introduced evidence connected to his first presidency, including testimony from former White House communications director Hope Hicks, former aide Madeleine Westerhout, communications involving Cohen and Trump's social-media statements. After the Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. United States that presidents have broad immunity for official acts — and imposed restrictions on using evidence of official conduct to prosecute private acts — Trump's lawyers argued that portions of the New York trial had crossed that constitutional line.
Hellerstein rejected that interpretation. He concluded that the challenged evidence had no substantive connection to Trump's federal responsibilities and that the underlying discussions remained personal even when presidential staff became involved. The judge wrote that there was “no way” discussions about hush-money payments concerning Daniels could constitute an official presidential act, adding that an affair or an effort to conceal one does not fall within the outer perimeter of a president's constitutional responsibilities. He separately observed that a presidential assistant can perform unofficial personal tasks for the president without turning those tasks into exercises of presidential power.
That distinction is the central legal significance of Friday's decision. The Supreme Court's immunity doctrine protects presidential authority, not every action undertaken by the individual who happens to hold the presidency. Trump's argument tested how far the doctrine could extend when conduct and evidence involve White House personnel or communications made while a president is serving. Hellerstein's answer was that context alone does not convert private conduct into an official act: the court must examine what the president was actually doing and whether it related to the responsibilities of federal office.
The ruling came only after a federal appeals court required Hellerstein to reconsider the issue more closely. A three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sent the matter back after concluding that the district judge needed to evaluate Trump's renewed removal request in light of the Supreme Court's July 2024 immunity ruling, including whether disputed trial evidence related to actions taken under the color of the presidency. Hellerstein reviewed that question and reached essentially the same conclusion as before: the case concerned Trump's personal conduct rather than exercises of presidential authority.
Trump also lost on a second, procedural ground. Hellerstein concluded that his lawyers waited too long after the Supreme Court immunity decision before making their renewed attempt to transfer the case. Trump initially asked New York trial judge Juan Merchan to overturn his conviction and only later returned to federal court. Hellerstein characterized that sequence as a strategic choice rather than good cause for the delay, saying Trump's grounds for a second removal were neither new nor legally sufficient.
The stakes remain unusual because Trump is attempting to eliminate a conviction that carries no prison sentence, fine or probation but substantial historical and political significance. Merchan sentenced him on January 10, 2025, to an unconditional discharge, leaving the guilty verdict intact without imposing punishment shortly before Trump's second inauguration. The case consequently left Trump as the first person elected to the U.S. presidency with a felony conviction, even though the sentence itself places no restrictions on him.
Trump's legal team immediately signaled that Friday's ruling will not end the federal battle. His lawyers filed notice indicating they intend to appeal, while a spokesperson said the Supreme Court's immunity decision and constitutional precedent require the case to be transferred and overturned. Trump has consistently denied wrongdoing, called the prosecution politically motivated and is simultaneously pursuing a separate challenge to the conviction through New York's state appellate courts. If unsuccessful there, constitutional questions could eventually provide another route toward the U.S. Supreme Court.
Friday's decision therefore does not erase Trump's ability to challenge his conviction, nor does it overturn or narrow the Supreme Court's presidential-immunity ruling. Its significance lies elsewhere: Hellerstein applied that doctrine and found a limit. The presence of White House aides, presidential communications or conduct occurring during a presidency does not by itself make the underlying activity an exercise of presidential power.
That distinction could matter beyond the Stormy Daniels case. Since the Supreme Court established broad protection for official presidential acts, lower courts have been forced to determine where protected presidential authority ends and private behavior begins. Hellerstein's ruling provides one answer: discussions concerning the concealment of an alleged personal relationship remain private even when the person having those discussions is president. Trump will now ask an appellate court to decide whether that boundary was drawn correctly.