US judge rejects Trump’s bid to switch hush-money case to federal court

In a significant legal development, a US federal court judge has decisively rejected former President Donald Trump's attempt to remove his recent criminal conviction from New York state court to the federal system. Judge Alvin Hellerstein ruled that the charges of falsifying business records, for which Trump was convicted, do not fall under federal jurisdiction despite claims that the actions were undertaken during his presidency. This decision ensures that the landmark case remains within the New York state judicial framework, where Trump was found guilty on 34 felony counts.

Trump's legal team had invoked the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442, arguing that the alleged misconduct – specifically the hush-money payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels and its subsequent accounting treatment – occurred while he was president and thus qualifies for federal oversight. They contended that recording the payments as legal expenses was incidental to his duties as a federal officer. However, Judge Hellerstein meticulously reviewed the arguments, concluding that the underlying conduct was personal in nature, aimed at protecting his presidential campaign rather than fulfilling official governmental functions. The judge's reasoning highlighted that the payment and its recording were not related to any 'act under color of such office' as required by the statute.

The ruling underscores the judiciary's role in delineating the boundaries of presidential immunity and the scope of federal court intervention in state criminal matters. It reinforces the principle that personal or campaign-related activities, even if performed by a sitting president, do not automatically qualify for federal jurisdiction under the removal statute. With this avenue for challenge now closed, the focus shifts back to the New York state court, where Trump's sentencing is pending. This rejection represents another legal setback for the former president as he continues to contest the legitimacy of his conviction, which carries significant legal and political ramifications.