President Trump’s hush money case returns to court on Wednesday for his conviction appeal, following the U.S. Supreme Court’s immunity decision.
Trump’s attorneys are asking a three-judge panel on the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to have the New York case moved to federal court, The Hill news outlet reported.
In January, days before his inauguration, Trump received a sentence in the case brought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg (D) of unconditional discharge, meaning he didn’t get jail time, probation, or a fine.
Trump was convicted on 34 counts of falsifying business records last year in connection with a 2016 payment his then-attorney, Michael Cohen, made to Stormy Daniels. He maintains he is innocent of wrongdoing and that the case is politically motivated.
The president cannot pardon himself in the state-level hush money case, and he is still considered a convicted felon.
Trump’s personal lawyers will argue that prosecutors made their case based on Trump’s official presidential actions, which means he should argue his case in federal court with his presidential immunity claims, that, if successful, could overturn the verdict.
In July, the Supreme Court ruled that Trump is immune from federal prosecution for some official acts he took while in office, but that there is no immunity for unofficial acts.
Trump tried to move the case to federal court before, but now his attorneys will argue that he has āgood causeā to make another attempt because the Supreme Court’s decision came after his conviction in May.
āPresident Trump had good cause to pursue a post-trial removal for a simple reason: he could not have raised any of the arguments set forth herein until well after his trial began,ā Trumpās attorneys wrote in their court filings.Ā
The Department of Justice filed an amicus brief in March in support of Trump’s effort to move the case to federal court.
Bragg’s office disagrees, arguing that the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity decision doesn’t apply in this case, that Trump showed a ālack of diligenceā by waiting two months after the ruling to restart his effort, and that his sentence makes the issue moot.
āEven if removal were still formally available here, there were ample grounds supporting the district courtās finding of lack of good cause to permit defendant to file a second, untimely notice of removal,ā Braggās office wrote in court filings.
The oral arguments will begin at 10 a.m. EDT on Monday, with the audio livestreamed.
