New York Appeals Court Hears Trump's Bid to Overturn 34-Count Hush Money Conviction; No Ruling Yet
On Nov. 5, five justices of the Appellate Division, First Department, questioned both sides on federal election-law preemption, presidential immunity and harmless error. A separate federal appeal over moving the case out of state court is reportedly set for Nov. 16.
Two courtrooms, one conviction
On Thursday, Nov. 5, 2026, five judges in Manhattan spent more than an hour on one question. Can a felony conviction of a sitting president stand? They sat on the Appellate Division, First Department, which is New York's mid-level appeals court. They heard President Donald Trump's appeal of his 2024 conviction on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records[1][4].
Prosecutors said the records hid a $130,000 payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election[4][15]. The court did not rule from the bench. It gave no timeline[2][4].
The conviction stays in place while the appeals run[4]. A second fight is also underway in federal court. It asks whether the case should be in state court at all. The two tracks are separate, but they push on the same legal questions.
How a records case became felonies
The charge itself explains why the appeal is so technical. In New York, falsifying business records is normally a misdemeanor. It becomes a felony only if the false entry was made to commit or hide "another crime."
Prosecutors said that other crime was a conspiracy to help Trump's 2016 campaign by "unlawful means." That included federal campaign-finance violations[2]. So the felony label depends on a link to federal election law.
That is where Trump's first argument comes in. Trump lawyer Robert Giuffra Jr. told the panel that the Federal Election Campaign Act, or FECA, "preempts" the state's theory. Preemption means a federal law crowds out state law in the same area. Trump's side says only federal authorities can enforce federal campaign law. A local prosecutor, they argue, can't turn it into a state felony[2].
Manhattan prosecutors answer that they never had to prove a FECA violation. Steven Wu, the DA's appeals chief, said the link was "important only to show that the purpose for the falsifying business records here was to conceal that conspiracy"[2]. In other words, the state prosecuted false records, not a federal crime. Wu added that a federal court had twice rejected the claim that FECA preempts the prosecution[4].
Official acts and the harmless-error test
Trump's second argument rests on the Supreme Court's 2024 immunity ruling, Trump v. United States. His lawyers say it bars using a president's official acts as evidence, even in a case about private conduct. They say jurors heard testimony from White House aides and saw his social media posts from his first term[4][15]. They also say the trial judge should have stepped aside and gave flawed jury instructions[4].
Bragg's office says the charges rest on Trump's private conduct, not his presidential duties[1]. It also makes a fallback argument. Even if some evidence should have been kept out, it says, the error was "harmless."
Here the "harmless error" test matters. Appeals courts don't undo a verdict for every mistake. They ask whether the jury almost certainly would have reached the same verdict without the improper evidence. Prosecutors point to "a mountain" of other proof, such as checks, invoices and witness testimony[2][5][12].
Trump's side says the tainted evidence mattered, so the court can't be sure. Justice Bahaati E. Pitt-Burke put the question to the prosecution: "at what point … does it stop being harmless error and turn into something else?"[2]
What the judges' questions do and don't show
Reporters at the same hearing came away with different impressions. CNN reported that the five justices, all appointed by Democratic governors, "at times appeared open" to Trump's arguments on preemption and immunity[1]. AP and Courthouse News stressed that the judges pressed both sides hard[2][3].
Both readings can be true of one hearing. Questions at oral argument often don't predict the ruling[2]. The panel's job is narrow. It must decide whether legal errors happened and whether they mattered[2].
Each side also has something larger at stake. Trump's team wants to erase a felony record and set limits on state prosecutions of presidents[7]. It calls the case the "most politically charged prosecution in our Nation's history" and says it was "infected by multiple fatal errors"[1][3]. Trump's side has also called it "the flimsy product of immense political pressure" on a Democratic prosecutor[6].
Bragg's office wants to protect a jury verdict won after a full trial. It also wants to defend the idea that a state can enforce its record-keeping laws against anyone. Its defenders see documents and testimony, and they see the appeal as an attempt to use presidential power to avoid accountability[12].
The federal track and the "two bites" problem
The second fight is about venue. A federal law lets federal officers move cases about their official acts from state court to federal court. After a conviction, a defendant needs "good cause" for the delay. A federal forum would give Trump's immunity claims a more direct path to the U.S. Supreme Court[7][10].
In November 2025, the Second Circuit told U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein to take a second look in light of the immunity ruling[10]. Fox News called that order a "legal win"[13]. But the panel only ordered a fresh review. It didn't rule for Trump on the merits.
Hellerstein has now refused the request three times. In February 2026 he faulted Trump's lawyers for waiting 58 days after the immunity ruling and trying state court first: "You sought two bites at the apple"[9]. On Aug. 29, 2026, he wrote that paying hush money and covering up an embarrassment "are not subsumed in presidential immunity." He also called Trump's arguments "neither new nor legally sufficient"[8]. Trump appealed the same day[8][11].
That appeal is reportedly set for argument on Nov. 16. That date appeared only in secondary reports, and I couldn't independently confirm it[6].
Same hearing, different headlines
The outlets framed the hearing differently. AP's headline said the court "weighs" the appeal, and it noted the court didn't signal how or when it would rule[2]. CNN's headline predicted the outcome: judges "appear open" to Trump's push[1]. Courthouse News called it Trump's "latest bid," which suggests a pattern of repeated attempts[3]. Raw Story led with prosecutors defending a "mountain of evidence"[12].
On the right, the Washington Examiner led its coverage of the August ruling with Trump's vow of a "powerful" appeal[11]. Fox News framed the earlier remand as a win[13]. People tied the hearing to what it called Republicans' midterm "rout," a political point unrelated to the legal questions[14]. Searches found no Nov. 5 hearing coverage from non-Western outlets. Al Jazeera's August report of the removal denial was straightforward[8].
What comes next is slow. The Appellate Division's ruling can be appealed to New York's Court of Appeals, and then possibly to the U.S. Supreme Court. A final answer is likely months or years away[7]. For now, the verdict stands until a court sets it aside[4].
Summary
On Thursday, Nov. 5, 2026, a five-judge panel of a New York state appeals court heard President Donald Trump's appeal of his 2024 hush money conviction[1][2]. A Manhattan jury had found him guilty on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. The records were tied to a $130,000 payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election[1][4]. The court is the Appellate Division, First Department, New York's mid-level appeals court. It did not say how or when it will rule[2].
Trump's lawyers raised two main arguments. First, they say federal campaign finance law 'preempts' the state's theory of the case. That means federal law crowds it out, so state prosecutors could not lean on it. Second, they say jurors heard evidence about his official acts as president, which the Supreme Court's 2024 immunity ruling forbids[1][4]. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office replies that falsifying business records is a routine crime. It says the charges involve Trump's private conduct, not his duties as president. And it argues that any wrongly admitted evidence was 'harmless error' given 'a mountain' of other proof[1][2][5].
CNN reported that the five justices, all appointed by Democratic governors, 'at times appeared open' to Trump's arguments on preemption and immunity[1]. AP and Courthouse News stressed that the judges pressed both sides hard[2][3]. The core dispute is whether any trial error was serious enough to undo the verdict. Trump's side says it poisoned the case. Prosecutors say the other evidence would have produced the same verdict. Justice Bahaati E. Pitt-Burke put that question directly to the prosecution[2].
A separate track runs in federal court. Trump is asking the federal appeals court in Manhattan to let him move the case to federal court. A federal judge has now refused that request three times, most recently on Aug. 29, 2026[8][11]. That appeal is reportedly set for argument on Nov. 16[6]. The conviction stands while both appeals are pending[4].
The Event
On Nov. 5, 2026, five justices of New York's Appellate Division, First Department, heard more than an hour of oral argument in Manhattan on Trump's appeal of his 34-count felony conviction[1][4]. Trump lawyer Robert Giuffra Jr. and Manhattan DA appeals chief Steven Wu argued before the panel[2][3]. The court made no ruling and gave no timeline[2].
Undisputed Facts
- A Manhattan jury convicted Trump in 2024 on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in the first degree[1][4].
- Prosecutors said the records concealed a $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels before the 2016 presidential election[4][15].
- A five-justice panel of the Appellate Division, First Department, heard Trump's appeal on Nov. 5, 2026, and did not rule from the bench[2][4].
- All five justices on the panel were appointed by Democratic governors[1].
- In November 2025, a federal appeals panel (the Second Circuit) told U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein to take a second look at Trump's request to move the case to federal court in light of the Supreme Court's immunity ruling[10].
- On Aug. 29, 2026, Hellerstein denied that request for a third time and wrote that paying hush money and covering up an embarrassment 'are not subsumed in presidential immunity'; Trump appealed the same day[8][11].
- The conviction remains in place while the appeals are pending[4].
The Pressure
Strip away the moralizing and blame. What structural realities persist regardless of which narrative wins?
- How a misdemeanor became 34 felonies
- In New York, falsifying business records is normally a misdemeanor. It becomes a felony only if the false entry was made to commit or hide 'another crime.' Prosecutors said the other crime was a conspiracy to help Trump's 2016 campaign by 'unlawful means,' including federal campaign-finance violations[2]. That is why preemption matters so much. Trump's side says only federal authorities can enforce federal campaign law, so the felony upgrade fails. Prosecutors say they never had to prove a FECA violation. In Wu's words, the link only showed the 'purpose' behind the false records[2].
- Immunity and the harmless-error test
- The Supreme Court's 2024 immunity ruling says a president's official acts cannot be used as evidence, even when the charges cover private conduct. Trump says jurors heard such evidence, including testimony from White House aides and his posts as president[4][15]. Appeals courts do not overturn a verdict for every mistake. Under the 'harmless error' test, the court asks whether the jury would almost certainly have reached the same verdict without the improper evidence. Prosecutors point to the checks, invoices and testimony as more than enough[5]. Trump's side says the tainted evidence was important, so the court cannot be sure. Pitt-Burke's question about where 'harmless' ends goes to exactly this point[2].
- Federal removal
- A federal law lets federal officers move cases about their official acts from state court to federal court. Filing after a conviction requires 'good cause' for the delay. Hellerstein found no good cause, noting Trump waited 58 days after the immunity ruling and went to state court first[9]. A federal forum would give Trump's immunity claims a more direct path to the U.S. Supreme Court[7][10].
Material realityThe conviction stands. In New York, the Appellate Division's ruling can be appealed to the state's highest court, the Court of Appeals, and then possibly to the U.S. Supreme Court. So a final answer is likely months or years away[7]. The federal removal appeal is a parallel route to the same question[8][11]. Neither path changes the fact that the verdict exists until a court sets it aside[4].
Narrative as a weaponTrump's team frames the case as political persecution riddled with legal errors, and it uses each procedural step, such as the 2025 remand, as proof of momentum. Bragg's office frames it as an ordinary records case backed by overwhelming evidence, where any error is harmless. Media framing split on the same hearing. CNN read the judges as 'open' to Trump. Courthouse News stressed the 'latest bid.' Raw Story led with the 'mountain of evidence.' AP stayed close to the record. Readers should note that oral-argument questions often do not predict how a court will rule[2].
How Each Side Sees It
Each major actor’s view — how it frames things, its underlying incentive, and how it’s materially affected. Tap a side to read it.
Frames it asThey call the case the 'most politically charged prosecution in our Nation's history' and say it 'was infected by multiple fatal errors'[1][3]. Their first argument is about federal power. Congress wrote the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) to cover federal campaigns, and they say it pushes aside state law in that area[2]. So a local prosecutor should not be able to turn a federal campaign-finance theory into a state felony. Their second argument is about how the trial was run. The Supreme Court's 2024 immunity ruling (Trump v. United States) says a president's official acts cannot be used as evidence against him. Yet jurors heard testimony from White House aides and saw Trump's social media posts from his first term[4][15]. They also say the trial judge should have stepped aside and gave flawed jury instructions[4].
WhyTo erase a felony record that a sitting president carries, and to set limits on state prosecutions of presidents. If they lose in state court, they want a route to the U.S. Supreme Court through the state's highest court or the federal removal track[7].
Impact on themA reversal would remove the only criminal conviction of a sitting U.S. president. A loss keeps the felony label in place and pushes the fight to New York's Court of Appeals and possibly the Supreme Court[7]. The hearing came days after midterm elections that People/Yahoo described as a Republican 'rout'[14].
Frames it asProsecutors say falsifying business records is a crime New York charges routinely. They say the charges rest on Trump's private, unofficial conduct, not his presidential duties[1]. On preemption, appeals chief Steven Wu argued the federal-election link mattered only to show motive. It was 'important only to show that the purpose for the falsifying business records here was to conceal that conspiracy'[2]. Wu also noted that a federal court had twice rejected the claim that FECA preempts the prosecution[4]. In other words, the state did not prosecute a federal crime. It prosecuted false records made to hide one. On immunity, they argue that even if some evidence should have been kept out, admitting it was 'harmless error.' A 'mountain' of other proof, such as checks, ledgers and witness testimony, supports the verdict[2][5][12].
WhyTo protect a jury verdict won after a full trial. Also to defend the principle that a state can enforce its own record-keeping laws against anyone, including a former and future president.
Impact on themA reversal would be a major setback for the office and for Bragg, whose prosecution critics have long attacked as political[2]. If the verdict is upheld, the office would still have to defend it in further appeals[7].
Frames it asThe appeals panel's job is to decide whether legal errors happened and whether they mattered. Justice Bahaati E. Pitt-Burke asked the prosecution: 'at what point … does it stop being harmless error and turn into something else?'[2]. In the federal track, Judge Hellerstein ruled that Trump's arguments were 'neither new nor legally sufficient'[8]. Earlier, he faulted Trump's lawyers for waiting 58 days after the immunity ruling and for trying state court first: 'You sought two bites at the apple'[9].
WhyTo settle new questions, such as how the 2024 immunity ruling applies to evidence in a state trial, in a way that holds up on further appeal[7].
Impact on themWhatever the courts decide will set precedent for state prosecutions of federal officials. It will also determine how quickly the case reaches the U.S. Supreme Court[7].
Frames it asTrump and his allies, and many Republicans, see a Democratic prosecutor stretching a bookkeeping misdemeanor into felonies to hurt a political rival. Trump's side has called the case 'the flimsy product of immense political pressure'[6]. Defenders, including many Democrats, see a jury verdict based on documents and testimony. They view the appeal as another attempt to use presidential power to escape accountability[12].
WhyEach camp wants the ruling to confirm its account of whether the legal system treated Trump unfairly or held him to the same rules as anyone else.
Impact on themEither result will be cited in the post-midterm political fight over Trump's presidency[14].
Like this article?
The Bias Ledger average rating 3.7
The same story, as framed by outlets across the spectrum, ordered least to most biased. The bias score (1 = straight, 10 = heavily spun) is an AI assessment of that framing — click an outlet to see its track record. The tell is the word choice or omission that reveals the angle.
| Outlet | Vantage | Bias | How they frame it | The tell |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Associated Press | U.S. center (wire) | 2 | Court weighs Trump's appeal in the Stormy Daniels hush money case | Neutral verb 'weighs' and the note that the court 'didn't signal how or when it would rule.' It gives both sides' key lines. Putting 'Stormy Daniels' in the headline adds a tabloid hook. |
| Al Jazeera | Qatari state-funded | 2 | US judge rejects Trump's bid to switch hush-money case to federal court | Straight report of the Aug. 2026 ruling that foregrounds the judge's line about hush money and immunity. Searches found no coverage of the Nov. 5 hearing. |
| Courthouse News | U.S. center (legal trade) | 3 | NY appellate judges question Trump's latest bid to toss hush money conviction | The phrase 'Latest bid' suggests a pattern of repeated attempts. The framing points the other way from CNN's headline on the same hearing. |
| CNN | U.S. center-left | 4 | Judges appear open to Trump's push to overturn hush money conviction | The headline predicts the outcome from the judges' questions, a reading AP and Courthouse News did not share. It also notes that all five justices were Democratic appointees, which makes the 'open to Trump' reading more striking. |
| Washington Examiner | U.S. right | 4 | Trump vows appeal after judge blocks federal transfer of hush money case | Leads with Trump's reaction (a 'powerful' appeal) rather than the judge's reasoning (Aug. 2026 removal ruling). |
| Fox News | U.S. right | 5 | Appeals court hands Trump legal win, orders review of hush money case over presidential immunity | Calls a procedural remand a 'legal win' (Nov. 2025). The Second Circuit only ordered the judge to reconsider; it did not rule for Trump on the merits. |
| Raw Story | U.S. left | 6 | Prosecutors defend 'mountain of evidence' as Trump lawyer tries to toss out felonies | It leads with the prosecution's strongest phrase and casts Trump as trying to 'toss out felonies.' The judges' openness to preemption and immunity arguments gets little weight. |
References
- Judges appear open to Trump's push to overturn hush money conviction — CNN · U.S. mainstream, center-left; owned by Warner Bros. Discovery
- Court weighs Trump's hush money appeal (AP) — Associated Press · Nonprofit cooperative wire, center; republished by a regional newspaper
- NY appellate judges question Trump's latest bid to toss hush money conviction — Courthouse News Service · Independent legal news service, center
- Appeals court weighs Trump's challenge to 2024 criminal hush money conviction — ABC News · U.S. mainstream, center; owned by Disney
- Trump urges appeals court to reverse hush-money convictions — Law&Crime · Commercial legal-news site, center; trial-coverage focus
- Trump's lawyers to appear before appeals court as he fights hush money conviction — Associated Press · Wire copy carried by the U.S. right-leaning Washington Times
- Trump's hush money appeal slowly wends its way back toward the Supreme Court — MS NOW · U.S. left-leaning cable news (formerly MSNBC)
- US judge rejects Trump's bid to switch hush-money case to federal court — Al Jazeera · Funded by the Qatari state
- Judge to Trump lawyers trying to move hush money appeal to federal court: 'You sought two bites at the apple' — CNN · U.S. mainstream, center-left; owned by Warner Bros. Discovery
- Appeals court revives Trump's effort to remove hush money case to federal court — ABC News · U.S. mainstream, center; owned by Disney
- Trump vows appeal after judge blocks federal transfer of hush money case — Washington Examiner · U.S. conservative; owned by Clarity Media (Anschutz)
- Prosecutors defend 'mountain of evidence' as Trump lawyer tries to toss out felonies — Raw Story · U.S. progressive digital outlet
- Appeals court hands Trump legal win, orders review of hush money case over presidential immunity — Fox News · U.S. conservative; owned by Fox Corp.
- Trump Returns to Court to Fight Hush Money Conviction Just Days After Republicans' Midterm Rout — People · U.S. celebrity/lifestyle magazine owned by People Inc.; politically center-left in tone
- Trump's lawyers argue for his criminal conviction in "hush money" case to be overturned — CBS News · U.S. mainstream, center; owned by Paramount Skydance