The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit just delivered a significant victory for President Donald Trump and his team by vacating the decision of U.S. District Court Judge Alvin Hellerstein, an Obama appointee, and ordering him to reconsider the motion to remove the case from New York to federal court. Hellerstein, now 91, twice rejected the claim, but, according to the Second Circuit, ignored major issues favoring removal.
For years, Trump has argued that the criminal hush money case brought by Manhattan D.A. Alvin Bragg in New York state court should have been transferred to federal court due to his claims of presidential privilege and immunity. In May 2024, Trump was convicted of 34 felony counts for falsifying business records, a case before Judge Juan Merchan that I strongly criticized as legally flawed and improperly tried.
The Supreme Court handed down its ruling in Trump v. United States in July 2024, recognizing core presidential privileges and immunities. The ruling led to the dismissal of the Special Counsel’s prosecutions against Trump. After the ruling, the Trump team renewed its demand for removal, but Hellerstein repeatedly denied that request.
The panel held that the Supreme Court opinion could constitute new grounds for removal. It particularly made certain evidence more problematic after Bragg unwisely used (and Merchan unwisely admitted) testimony from White House meetings. The panel noted three of those instances raised by the Trump team:
“First is the “testimony that President Trump allegedly ‘told’ Cohen that [an] FEC inquiry would be ‘taken care of’ by then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions.” Appellant’s Br. 44. Second is the “testimony from [Hope] Hicks concerning private conversations with President Trump regarding matters of public concern relating to Cohen and his activities, which occurred in the Oval Office while Hicks served as White House Communications Director.” Appellant’s Br. 40–41. And third is the ‘evidence of . . . official statements by President Trump in 2018, via Twitter, regarding matters of public concern.’”
Yesterday, the Second Circuit ruled that the district court failed to consider “important issues relevant” to the merits of the motion:
The District Court denied leave, concluding, among other things, that “good cause” had not been shown for the delay in seeking removal a second time. We cannot be confident that in doing so, the District Court adequately considered issues relevant to the good cause inquiry so as to enable meaningful appellate review. Those issues include but are not limited to the impact of Trump v. United States on the removability of the underlying state prosecution. For example, the District Court did not consider whether certain evidence admitted during the state court trial relates to immunized official acts or, if so, whether evidentiary immunity transformed the State’s case into one that relates to acts under color of the Presidency. Nor did the District Court consider whether any notice of removal of a criminal prosecution under § 1455(b)(1) must be filed before trial even if new grounds for removal arise during or after trial. We therefore VACATE the District Court’s order denying Trump’s motion for leave to file a second notice of removal and REMAND for reconsideration of the motion consistent with this opinion.
The appellate panel was composed of Judges Susan L. Carney (an Obama appointee), Raymond J. Lohier Jr. (an Obama appointee), and Myrna Pérez (a Biden appointee).
The panel added:
“We leave it to the able and experienced district judge to decide whether to solicit further briefing from the parties or hold a hearing to help it resolve these issues. We express no view and ‘neither rule nor imply’ that the district court should resolve Trump’s motion for leave to file a second removal notice in any particular way.”
I am particularly pleased to see that two Obama appointees and a Biden appointee rendered this decision. In sharp contrast to the highly biased role some state judges have played over the years, the ruling reaffirms the independence and integrity of the courts. The usual attacks on the court will be muted in light of its composition. It cannot be said that these were just robotic or reactionary jurists.
This was manifestly the correct decision. Hellerstein could still deny the motion a third time after iron-plating his decision. However, the ruling indicates that the panel views this evidence to be sufficiently weighty to justify a second look and more detailed findings from the district court.
Here is the opinion: Trump v. People of the New York State
“It cannot be said that these were just robotic or reactionary jurists.”
They’ll say it anyway. Their war was never with Trump. It’s with the Constitution. Trump is just the speed bump.
And what difference does this make?
To state simply, this means that those who committed crimes have power, and even if disputed and receiving remand later, those they persecuted will still be just as destroyed without either remorse or remuneration.
On May 25, 1987, Raymond Donovan[former Secretary of Labor] (and all of the other defendants) were acquitted with a number of jurors openly applauding the verdict, after which Donovan was famously quoted as asking, “Which office do I go to to get my reputation back?” – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_J._Donovan#Criminal_investigation_and_exoneration.
Besides, today, U.S. District Judge John McConnell in Connecticut ruled that HE has the power of the Legislature (where the “money” has been frozen over never allocated due to Senatorial Filibuster preventing funding) and over the Executive branch (President of the United States) in ordering to pay money that doesn’t exist.
Besides, historically this repeats so often it is not even worth commenting on – the rule of hatred exceeds the value of logic and laity law – in case you didn’t notice that the elected officer of the law by majority vote of Virginians, Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones. – “Three people, two bullets… put Gilbert[his political opponent] in the crew with the two worst people you know and he receives both bullets every time.”, “I mean do I think Todd and Jennifer are evil? And that they’re breeding little fascists? Yes.” and in the same conversation train wished a mother could watch her children die.
If you take this back about 2 millennia:
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and decorate the monuments of the righteous, saying, ‘If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’Thus you witness against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets’.” Matthew 23:29-31
For crying out-loud, is copy and paste all you can do with that little brain of yours?
“[T]he ruling reaffirms the independence and integrity of the courts.” It does nothing of the sort. It is that some judges’ conduct is just so egregiously wrong that not even their allies — “We leave it to the able and experienced district judge” — can defend it.
Professor Turley says: “In sharp contrast to the highly biased role some state judges have played over the years, the ruling reaffirms the independence and integrity of the courts.”
One, begrudging act of integrity by these state judges wipes away all the years of New York judicial lawfare and double standards of justice brought to bear against Trump? Over how many years?
Allowed to be brought by how many politicians and prosecutors who appeared in front of these judges after publicly campaigned they should be elected to misuse their office to get Trump for something? Judge Merchan will suddenly develop a conscience and exclude political bias from all further matters concerning Trump?
New York’s state judges have fixed themselves and corrected their course Professor Turley assures us!
Nothing To See Here, Please Believe Professor Turley, Don’t Believe Your Lying Eyes™
Ultimately, Merchan, Bragg and the 34 convictions they managed and how they got those convictions are going to have to attempt to survive by justifying that their actions were normal before an appellate court well beyond the political poison and influence of what is now Mamdani’s New York.
There are far more glaring judicial and prosecutorial positions that will have to be answered for on those appeals.
We have had some hiccups but this ruling is a positive sign that our nonpartisan court system is working. Checks and balances.
We have had some hiccups but this ruling is a positive sign that our nonpartisan court system is working. Checks and balances.
To believe that is to believe that the Soviet-style prosecution of Trump with Bragg and Merchan working together in Lavarentiy Beria fashion might have had some minor hiccups, but in general it was our nonpartisan court system on display for all Americans to be reassured about.
Oh yeah! Nothing To See Here, Please Believe Us, Don’t Believe Your Lying Eyes™
The media will undoubtedly state that these were Trump owned judge.
“We have had some hiccups but this ruling is a positive sign that our nonpartisan court system is working. Checks and balances.”
The most appropriate reaction to Turley’s column and your comment is to cite the “stopped clock” truism. Except in the case of Dem-nominated activist judges, it’s more like “twice a decade”…
This case and other Trump lawfare cases just reinforce, for me, that “justice” is unaffordable and out of reach for the common man. Who but a billionaire or someone backed up by free government lawyers could afford to fight multiple cases like this. Most of us would have to mortgage our life to go to court just once.
The term “malicious prosecution(s)” must have no meaning at all. “Double jeopardy” is dismissed with fallacious arguments about different jurisdictions that would make a sophist blush. If the state wants to destroy you they will. Have they no shame? This is why people don’t trust lawyers, judges or the law.
These prosecutors are openly and proudly using the power of the state to destroy a man; and the judges go along with it. The blind justice thing is a joke. The swamp will destroy you if you step out of line or maybe just because they don’t like you.
Most of the legal profession went along with the lawfare. They were too afraid that the corrupt prosecutors, judges or the ABA would strip them of their livelihood. We are led by crooks and cowards.
Well Butter My Butt and call me Biscuit!
Kudos for the Appeals Court for the Second Circuit, They carried the Water and brought clarity to the Case without ‘Political Color of Law’.
Now lets see what legs the Lower Court has left.
Turls, you sound giddy that your boy gets another possible escape route.
Why don’t you just go away?
Awww truth hurts doesn’t it cap?
An escape route called Justice. How quaint!
I guess you love being a loser.
“Anonymous”
Trump has owned you libs, lol.
Interesting decision. Surprising but very interesting. Like the Professor I am pleased to see this decision cross party lines. I think we all want fair decisions based on the law and precedent irrespective of whether the Judge or accused is a democrat or republican, justice is what the country needs. Contrast this with the machinations of the esteemed Justice Boasberg.
can ANYONE tell me of the 1000’s of lawfare ruling…has ONE CRIMINAL democrat gone to jail?
I don’t want judges to reconsider…I want these CORRUPT JUDGES JAILED for TREASON!
…..the ruling reaffirms the independence and integrity of the courts
🎶 Let it go, let it go
Can’t hold it back anymore
Let it go, let it go 🎶
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0MK7qz13bU&t=61s
91 years old, did this guy clerk for king Solomon? We have to set limits on how long these people serve. Can you imagine we have maybe 40 more years of Ketanji Onyika Brown Jackson?
Agree this is a bogus, witch hunt, political hit job by the DEMS to go after Trump. The NY City Courts etc are a tool of the Liberal, Woke, Trump haters, DEM’s. This trial and others were nothing but a Kangaroo’s Clown Show for the DEMS and their friends in the MSM. When they finally throw the case out Trump should sue to get reimbursed from the City of NY. Alvin Donut Bragg should be thrown out of office.
This case should never have existed. Total political lawfare in the many attempts to get Trump. If this was any Democrat, it would not see the light of day, and it shouldn’t. Waste of time and money. Get over it, and care about something that actually matters, like voting into office a communist Muslim who citizenship is questionable, as well as an AG who wants to kill his opponent and his children whilst the governor elect remains mum and a poll showed 93% of democrats believe it’s okay to commit murder for political reasons.
Invisible says If this was any Democrat, it would not see the light of day, and it shouldn’t.
It was a Democrat, and it didn’t, but perhaps it should have. At the time Bragg launched his Lavarentiy Beria style campaign to get Trump (as he promised to do if elected) Hillary Clinton had been found guilty of election crimes but only fined by the FEC when she admitted guilt and paid the fine. The same FEC had found there were no crimes committed by Trump in that election cycle, including the previous nondisclosure agreements he had in place.
So Alvin ‘Law and Order’ Bragg gave Clinton yet another pass, didn’t even look at her after she had admitted to and been fined for her election crimes, but went about spending weeks twisting and turning federal and state laws into something he and Judge Merchan found they believed would pass the New York City smell test.
When you look at Jack Smith’s first appearance as a Democrat White House’s political hitman back in 2012, and how SCOTUS ruled he essentially rewrote the law to convict Governor McDonald, the man Obama feared as the greatest threat to his reelection, what Alvin Bragg and Merchan did here was pretty much a carbon copy of what Obama’s Jack Smith and that trial court allowed to take Governor McDonald out of the political arena ten years earlier. Anyone want to believe Alvin Bragg didn’t pour over Smith’s persecution of McDonald page by page before launching his prosecution of Trump?
These judges are nowhere near displaying independence and integrity of the courts as Professor Turley wants us to believe. We’ve watched years of eager judicial bias straight out of the template of Stalin’s show trials orchestrated by his political hitman, Lavarentiy Beria (minus the bullet to the back of the head in the basement of a prison at the conclusion of the trial).
Professor Turley has responded to them by saving them with light criticism – when an honest mind knows that this is not slightly biased mistakes in procedure and rulings, this is deliberate flat out corruption and police state fascism. Whether the judges name is Merchan or Boasberg.
A lot of people hope Americans forget it wasn’t just Trump they did it to, and not just some of his administration like General Flynn. What’s perhaps worse because they have neither the money or the name to fight back, is in many cases it was ordinary Americans whose opposition to Democrat culture had them abused by these same prosecutors and judges. People attending a school board meeting to vocally protest rapist Trannies being put in their daughters school change rooms and bathrooms as just one example.
All while prosecutors like Bragg could always find a way to minimize or not even prosecute serious violent crimes by violent felons already with a long list of violent felony convictions.
Anyone claiming judicial order has been restored is lying to you.
When even three leftwing extremist jurists slap down Judge Alvin Hellerstein, you know just how far into the leftwing fascist hole and unqualified judge Hellerstein is. These efforts to get Trump at all costs did more damage to the American judicial system than at any time in the past century or more.
But the other take on this is the if the (D) federal judiciary plays ping-pong with the case long enough, Trump shuffles off this mortal coil with the “convicted felon” blemish in tact.
Does that mean that if the motion is granted and the trial removed to Federal court for a re-do, it will be re-tried before Judge Hellerstein (JD, Columbia Law School, 1956)?
This case will not be resolved in Trump’s lifetime.
” it will be re-tried before Judge Hellerstein (JD, Columbia Law School, 1956)”
What is the disposition of the remand if Hellerstein croaks before he re-hears it?
The Professor is, “pleased” that 2 Obama and a Biden appointee rendered this decision . . . The rest of us are ecstatic . . . And shocked! Can someone check to see if Hell also froze over?
The underlying action occurred before he was President. Anything that followed should be treated as relating to that action and immunity should not come into it.
That’s not the core issue here- the testimony contains three specific instances where Presidential immunity is relevant- one of official state and two of Presidential conversations. If the judge can “ironclad” his opinion without these three pieces if evidence, it will stay in his court. If not, it goes to a Federal judge.
Yes, and basically, this 91 yo judge has been told “do you want to have your last case overturned because of your TDS?”
Didn’t the feds already say they were not going to try this case – or something along those lines. Paying someone to keep their mouth shut is not a crime. Keeping proper accounting of where money was spent, in this case to his lawyer, is also not a crime. The judge Merchan when sending the highly biased jury into deliberations could not even list the crime they were adjudicating. He basically told them, pick anything you like and there doesn’t need to be a majority, just as long as all of you agree he committed some kind crime. This is not justice. This is complete and total Caca Del Toro.
The “underlying action” is the exact same thing that Hilary Clinton did when calling her payments for the Russian Dossier “legal fees” with no indictment, no state court action, no “convicted felon” monikers and no hue and cry from partisan hacks like you.
HullBobby,
Thank you for pointing out those facts.
The underlying action occurred before he was President.
Winner, winner, chicken dinner! Yes, the nondisclosure agreement was entered into long before the campaign. So yes, immunity shouldn’t come from it – because that puts it outside the period that FEC election laws pertain to – even if you want to claim that nondisclosure agreements paid for by a candidates personal money are still illegal.
Of course, in the Democrat Borg, there are different rules. Including the one where Bragg can legitimately prosecute Trump for federal FEC crimes committed in that election cycle – but can give Hillary Clinton a pass for that same prosecution. Despite the fact the FEC that ruled Trump didn’t commit any crimes, but DID rule Clinton committed FEC election crimes in the same election cycle.
The Big D Democrat Double Standards of justice right there in front of your eyes!
It was indeed a significant ruling but it was incomplete, having dealt with only the narrow issue of “good cause”. It remanded instead of dealing head on with the broader issues, thus insuring that justice will continue to be delayed (thus denied).