Appeals court to take up Trump's challenge to his criminal hush money conviction
Just over a year after Donald Trump became the first former president to be found guilty of a felony, an appeals court is set to hear the president's bid to move his case to federal court.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit has scheduled oral arguments Wednesday to consider whether to move the president's criminal hush money case from state to federal court.
Trump was found guilty last year on 34 felony counts after Manhattan prosecutors alleged that he engaged in a "scheme" to boost his chances during the 2016 presidential election through a series of hush money payments to adult film actress Stormy Daniels, and then falsified New York business records to cover up that alleged criminal conduct.
MORE: Trump was convicted of 34 felonies a year ago. He's still battling the case
Trump's lawyers have argued that the conduct at issue during his criminal trial included "official acts" undertaken while he was president, giving the president broad immunity for his actions and the right to remove the case to federal court. They say that the Supreme Court's landmark ruling last year granting the president immunity for official acts -- which was decided after Trump was convicted in May -- would have prevented prosecutors from securing their conviction.
"The fact that it was not until after the conclusion of his state criminal trial that the Supreme Court issued its landmark decision defining the contours of presidential immunity -- including a broad evidentiary immunity prohibiting prosecutors from inviting a jury to probe a President's official acts, as President Trump's removal notice alleges occurred here -- supplies good cause for post-trial removal," Department of Justice lawyers argued in an amicus brief filed with the court.
Trump decried the prosecution as politically motivated and successfully delayed his sentencing multiple times before New York Judge Juan Merchan, on the eve of Trump's inauguration, sentenced the former president to an unconditional discharge -- the lightest possible punishment allowed under New York state law -- saying it was the "only lawful sentence" to prevent "encroaching upon the highest office in the land."
"I did my job, and we did our job," Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who brought the case, said following Trump's conviction. "There are many voices out there, but the only voice that matters is the voice of the jury, and the jury has spoken."
Bragg has pushed back on Trump's attempt to remove the case from state court, arguing that a case cannot be moved to federal court after sentencing.
"These arguments ignore statutory indicia that Congress intended for removal of criminal cases to happen before sentencing by anticipating that essential federal proceedings will take place prior to a final criminal judgment," prosecutors have argued.
Trump's appeal will be heard by a panel of three federal judges, each of whom was nominated to the bench by Democratic presidents.
With Trump's former defense attorneys now serving top roles at the Department of Justice, the president will now be represented by former Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall of the elite law firm Sullivan & Cromwell. In an usual step, lawyers with the Department of Justice filed an amicus brief in support of Trump's request.
"The United States has a strong and direct interest in the issues presented in this appeal," they argued.
If the appeals court grants Trump's request, his conviction would still remain. The only change is that his appeal will play out in a federal, rather than state, courtroom.
In either scenario, Trump could ultimately ask the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene. Moving the case into federal court could also open up the possibility that Trump could potentially pardon himself.
Appeals court to take up Trump's challenge to his criminal hush money conviction originally appeared on abcnews.go.com
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
25 minutes ago
- CNN
Supreme Court backs families fighting school district over disability discrimination
The Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously sided with a Minnesota family that has been battling their local school district over the education of their daughter in a decision that could make it easier for other parents of disabled children to seek damages from schools under federal disability laws. The decision, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, rejected a lower court ruling that had set a high legal bar to bring those claims, essentially shielding school districts from certain suits involving disability discrimination. The teenager at the center of the case, identified in court papers as Ava, has a rare form of epilepsy that made it impossible for her to attend school in the morning. Her parents requested that the district accommodate her disability with evening instruction, but school officials initially declined to do so. The parents filed a successful complaint under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which resulted in a decision requiring the school to offer evening parents then sued the district for damages under the Americans with Disability Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. That latter law is what allows parents and schools to develop '504 plans' to accommodate students with disabilities. A federal district court ruled with the schools, holding that the family had not demonstrated that school administrators operated with 'bad faith or gross misjudgment,' a higher legal standard than the 'deliberate indifference' threshold that courts apply in other disability discrimination contests. The 8th US Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that decision and the parents appealed to the Supreme Court in September. In its decision on Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled that the same standard that applies in other disability contexts should also apply in schools. It doesn't mean that the families will necessarily win their cases, but it will make it easier for them to bring their claims. 'That our decision is narrow does not diminish its import' for the family involved in the litigation 'and 'a great many children with disabilities and their parents,'' Roberts wrote. 'Together they face daunting challenges on a daily basis,' Roberts added. 'We hold today that those challenges do not include having to satisfy a more stringent standard of proof than other plaintiffs to establish discrimination under Title II of the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.' Five federal appeals courts have required parents to meet the higher standard to proceed with litigation and two others apply the lower standard. Public school districts, worried about limited resources, had argued at the Supreme Court that the way to handle the case was not to lower the standard for families like the one involved but rather to raise it for everyone else. But the court dismissed that argument as arriving too late in the litigation. The court's 'resolution of these issues could have significant ramifications for both disability law and discrimination law more generally,' Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in a concurring opinion joined by Justice Brett Kavanaugh. 'That these issues are consequential is all the more reason to wait for a case in which they are squarely before us and we have the benefit of adversarial briefing.' Two years ago, the Supreme Court sided unanimously with a student who is deaf and also sought to sue his school for damages. That case dealt with whether students could pursue those claims for damages before they exhaust administrative processes required under another law, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
Politico
25 minutes ago
- Politico
Trump revokes California's nation-leading electric vehicle mandate
President Donald Trump moved Thursday to eliminate California's nation-leading vehicle emissions standards, upending strict rules that had become a template for states across the nation to realize their greenhouse gas ambitions. Trump signed three Congressional Review Act resolutions rolling back a trio of California's rules at a White House signing ceremony, delivering on his Day 1 executive order to quickly roll back electric vehicle mandates around the country. 'We officially rescue the US auto industry from destruction by terminating California's electric vehicle mandate, once and for all,' Trump said at a Oval Office signing alongside House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, Energy Secretary Chris Wright and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin. The president, in a wide-ranging speech before the signing, used the moment to hit on a range of issues, including inflation, his disdain for windmills and his recent fallout with Tesla CEO Elon Musk. 'Now we know why Elon doesn't like me so much,' Trump quipped, before saying that Musk never asked him to save EV rules and that their break was over other 'smaller things.' While the Trump administration has also gone on the offensive against federal vehicle standards, California's regulations aimed at phasing out gas-powered passenger vehicles and heavy-duty diesel trucks — which are followed by a dozen other states — have drawn the stiffest opposition from the auto and fossil fuel industries. 'Worse than unachievable, these EV mandates were going to be harmful,' said John Bozzella, president and CEO of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation. 'Harmful to auto affordability, to consumer choice, to industry competitiveness and to economic activity.' The move takes place against the backdrop of worsening relations between Trump and Gov, Gavin Newsom, with the president ordering the military to quell unrest in Los Angeles over immigration raids. It also comes as Tesla CEO and former White House adviser Elon Musk clashed with Trump last week over electric vehicle policies. Trump's signature revokes the Golden State's unique permission to exceed federal vehicle pollution standards, which it's used for decades to set nation-leading rules. A dozen other Democrat-led states have opted to follow California's rules, representing one-third of the U.S. auto market. California's regulations aim to require automakers to sell increasing percentages of zero-emission vehicles, culminating in a 2035 target of all new-car sales being electric or otherwise carbon-free. Trump had targeted California's rules in his first term and on the campaign trail for his second term. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin asked Congress to revoke them using the Congressional Review Act, which allows Congress to overturn rules passed in the waning days of the previous administration. The request triggered a debate among Republicans about whether to stretch congressional norms by using the CRA to roll back California's rules, which Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough and the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office have said aren't subject to the law. In addition to the rules for passenger vehicles, Thursday's signings roll back California's authority to enforce zero-emission sales targets for commercial trucks and higher standards for heavy-duty diesel engines. The fight over whether Congress acted lawfully will now head to the courts. California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta said last month they would sue immediately after Trump signs the resolutions. The outcome of that court case will have widespread implications, as Democratic leaders seek to wean drivers and industry off fossil fuels and hit lofty greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals. But the question is especially acute for California, which has struggled for decades to reduce the nation's worst smog in the Los Angeles area and Central Valley and comply with federal air quality standards under the Clean Air Act. Failure to reach those standards could result in sanctions and withholding of federal highway funds, which both Republican and Democratic administrations have floated in the past. Trump's EPA threatened sanctions against the state in 2019, just days after the agency revoked an earlier version of its electric vehicle rules. 'It is hard to imagine that they will not threaten sanctions,' said Ann Carlson, who was head of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration under former President Joe Biden. 'The president clearly has it out for California, and Los Angeles is obviously in his sights.' EPA said in a statement when asked about the possibility of sanctions that it will enforce the Clean Air Act. 'EPA will continue to implement the Clean Air Act as provided in law and will continue to hope that California can get into attainment after decades of nonattainment,' the agency said. EPA could develop its own plan for California to meet federal standards, though air quality experts say that's unlikely because the agency would have to take unpopular steps like restricting driving. California Air Resources Board spokesperson Lindsay Buckley said in a statement that without the waivers, the state will need to find an alternative to reach compliance. CARB chair Liane Randolph told state lawmakers during a hearing last month that she's 'confident California will prevail in litigation,' but that could take years, during which the rules are not enforceable. Randolph suggested that the state could consider approaches like district emissions rules for 'indirect sources' like warehouses that attract commercial trucks, incentives to encourage EV purchases and putting more funding towards public transit.
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
People Are Absolutely Dragging JD Vance For His "Cringe" Tweet About "Les Mis"
Vice President JD Vance and his wife, Usha Vance, joined President Donald Trump and first lady Melania Trump for a performance of Les Misérables at the Kennedy Center on Wednesday evening. Many found it ironic, given that the musical is about an uprising against abusive authority figures. But just before the show, Vance wanted to make it very clear he had no idea what it was about. The vice president posted: @JDVance / Via In a follow-up tweet, the vice president added: 'That's apparently a different thing called Sweeney Todd.' @JDVance / Via Twitter: @JDVance Given that Les Misérables is one of the most enduring and widely performed modern musicals ― and that it's based on what's considered one of the most important novels of the 19th century ― not many people are buying Vance's ignorance. And they let him know on X: @DSAOrangeCounty / Via @SonnyBunch / Via @alex_shephard / Via Related: The Internet Is Having A Field Day Over Marjorie Taylor Greene's Tweet About Homeschooling With An Altered Map @CanadianKobzar / Via @Biedersam / Via @realStevenWalk / Via @AttalAurelia / Via Related: A NSFW Float Depicting Donald Trump's "MAGA" Penis Was Just Paraded Around Germany, And It' LauraBedrossian / Via @Richard_Vixen / Via @jaredlipof / Via @taylorttt / Via @dwaldenwrites / Via @StatisticUrban / Via @mccue / Via @Letterb0xed / Via @The_Wireman / Via This article originally appeared on HuffPost. Also in In the News: JD Vance Shared The Most Bizarre Tweet Of Him Serving "Food" As Donald Trump's Housewife Also in In the News: This Senator's Clap Back Fully Gagged An MSNBC Anchor, And The Clip Is Going Viral Also in In the News: AOC's Viral Response About A Potential Presidential Run Has Everyone Watching, And I'm Honestly Living For It
