Trump’s Legal Team Pushes To Shift Hush Money Case To Federal Jurisdiction

Donald Trump’s defense team has filed a renewed request to move his conviction on hush money charges to federal court, arguing that the case involves actions taken during his presidency, which they claim should be handled under federal jurisdiction. This move could allow Trump to potentially end the prosecution if he were to reclaim the presidency.

The filing, submitted on Monday to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, is part of Trump’s ongoing effort to challenge a September 3 ruling from U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein, who had rejected the request to shift the case to federal court. Trump was convicted in May of 34 felony counts related to falsifying business records in connection with the payment of $130,000 to adult film actress Stormy Daniels.

Legal Strategy: Presidential Immunity and Official Acts

In their appeal, Trump’s attorneys cited a U.S. Supreme Court decision from July 1, which clarified that former presidents cannot be prosecuted for actions taken during their time in office, provided those actions were within the scope of their official duties. Trump’s legal team argues that evidence used in the case improperly referenced his official presidential acts, which, they contend, violates constitutional principles regarding presidential authority.

Trump’s lawyers, Todd Blanche and Emil Bove, argue that the state charges encroach upon the constitutional protections afforded to a sitting president and interfere with the duties of the presidency. In their filing, they stated: “The use of official-acts evidence in grand jury proceedings and at trial violated the Constitution and threatens the ability of all future Presidents to fulfill that role.”

The Hush Money Case: Payment to Stormy Daniels

Trump’s conviction stems from accusations that he falsified business records to conceal a payment made to Stormy Daniels through his former attorney, Michael Cohen, in 2016. The $130,000 was allegedly intended to secure Daniels’ silence about an affair she claims to have had with Trump a decade earlier, just before the presidential election. The case was pursued by the office of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg.

Trump has consistently denied any sexual encounter with Daniels and maintains that the payment was made for personal reasons, not as part of any campaign-related strategy. He has vowed to appeal his conviction, with his sentencing scheduled for November 26.

The Legal Implications of the Supreme Court’s Ruling

The defense has pointed to a recent Supreme Court ruling, which was issued in response to federal charges related to Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. In that case, the Supreme Court affirmed that the official acts of a sitting president cannot be used as evidence in criminal cases regarding personal misconduct. Trump’s lawyers contend that this precedent should apply to the hush money case, arguing that the charges should be dismissed due to the nature of the evidence presented.

Judge Hellerstein’s Ruling and the Path Ahead

Judge Alvin Hellerstein rejected the request to move the case to federal court, reasoning that the charges dealt with “private, unofficial acts, outside the bounds of executive authority.” He emphasized that the case involved Trump’s personal conduct, not actions taken as part of his official role as president.

If the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals upholds this decision, Trump’s legal team may seek to escalate the matter to the U.S. Supreme Court, where he could hope for a favorable ruling given its current 6-3 conservative majority, which includes three justices appointed by Trump himself.

The Upcoming Legal Battle

As the case continues to unfold, the legal challenges surrounding Trump’s conviction and the potential for federal intervention remain central to his defense strategy. If the 2nd Circuit rules against Trump’s request, his team could appeal directly to the Supreme Court for a final determination.

At present, Trump’s legal team and prosecutors from Bragg’s office are awaiting further developments. A spokesperson for Bragg’s office declined to comment immediately on the filing, and the 2nd Circuit has not yet set a deadline for Bragg’s office to respond.

With the presidential election looming, the legal battles surrounding Trump’s multiple cases will likely play a significant role in shaping the political landscape in the months ahead.

(INCLUDES INPUTS FROM ONLINE SOURCES)

ALSO READ: Tight Race Ahead: Trump Tops Harris In Crucial Early Voting States