Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg is actively opposing former President Donald Trump's efforts to overturn his 2024 conviction related to hush money payments. In May 2024, a New York jury convicted Trump on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records, stemming from payments made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels during the 2016 presidential campaign. Prosecutors argued that these payments were intended to conceal an alleged affair and influence the election outcome.
Trump's legal team has pursued multiple avenues to challenge the conviction. In October 2025, they filed a formal appeal in New York state court, claiming that the trial was "fatally marred" by inadmissible evidence and judicial bias. They contended that certain evidence, including testimony from former White House aide Hope Hicks and Trump's social media posts, was protected under presidential immunity and should not have been considered.
Concurrently, Trump's attorneys sought to move the case to federal court, arguing that the charges were related to official presidential conduct and thus fell under federal jurisdiction. In November 2025, a federal appeals court revived this effort, instructing U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein to reconsider his previous denial of the request. The court noted that Judge Hellerstein had not fully addressed the relevant issues concerning the case's removability to federal court.
In response, District Attorney Bragg's office has consistently opposed these motions. They argue that the charges are based on personal conduct unrelated to Trump's official duties as president. In a January 2026 court filing, Bragg's team stated that the case "was based on wholly private, unofficial conduct" and that the federal court lacked jurisdiction over the matter.
As of July 2026, the legal proceedings are ongoing. The New York state appellate court is reviewing Trump's appeal, while federal courts are considering the jurisdictional questions raised by his legal team. The outcome of these proceedings could have significant implications for the legal landscape surrounding presidential immunity and the scope of federal jurisdiction over state-level criminal cases.