The 2nd Circuit has reopened the path for President Trump to seek removal of his New York hush-money case to federal court, raising fresh questions about presidential immunity and how lower courts handle removal requests. A three-judge panel flagged gaps in the lower court’s analysis and sent the matter back for reconsideration. The ruling lets Trump’s team try again to argue that the Supreme Court’s immunity decision may shield him from the 34 felony counts tied to the alleged payments to Stormy Daniels.
The appeals panel said it “cannot be confident” the district judge gave adequate weight to arguments that emerged after trial and after the Supreme Court’s immunity decision. That concern came from a three-judge panel described in filings as including two Obama appointees and a Biden appointee. The panel’s move does not resolve the underlying question of immunity but forces the lower court to explain its reasoning more fully.
At the heart of the dispute is whether evidence in the state prosecution touches on actions that were part of the President’s official duties, and whether that could make the case removable to federal court. The panel specifically flagged the need to consider the effect of the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. United States on removability. This is not a grant of victory for either side, but a demand that the district court examine key legal points it may have overlooked.
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 panel also wrote, “The court bypassed what we consider to be important issues bearing on the ultimate issue of good cause,” signaling a concern that appellate review could be hamstrung if the district court’s rationale stays murky. The judges stopped short of predicting any particular outcome on remand, instead telling the lower court to reexamine the removal motion in light of the immunity ruling and related legal questions. That instruction gives the district judge discretion to request further briefing or hold a hearing.
“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,” the panel continued. That language puts the ball back in the district court’s court and preserves procedural options for both sides. It also signals the appeals court wants a clear record so any further appellate review can be meaningful.
The underlying conviction dates to May 2024, when Trump was convicted in New York state court on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. Prosecutors alleged the former president directed his lawyer to pay $130,000 to adult film actress Stormy Daniels to silence her ahead of the 2016 election. Those facts remain the basis for the state prosecution even as litigants test whether the scope of presidential immunity or evidentiary immunity alters removability.
Trump’s legal team responded in a statement arguing the decision vindicates their position and demanding dismissal of the case on constitutional grounds. “President Trump continues to win in his fight against Radical Democrat Lawfare,” a spokesperson for Trump’s legal team said in a statement. “The Supreme Court’s historic decision on Immunity, the Federal and New York State Constitutions, and other established legal precedent mandate that the Witch Hunt perpetrated by the Manhattan DA be immediately overturned and dismissed.”
“President Trump will keep defeating Democrat weaponization at every turn as he focuses on his singular mission to Make America Great Again,” they added. Those lines make clear the political stakes around the litigation and why both sides view procedural rulings as potentially decisive. As the district court reconsiders, expect more filings and sharper briefing on how immunity doctrine intersects with removal statutes.
Editor’s Note: The Schumer Shutdown is here. Rather than put the American people first, Chuck Schumer and the radical Democrats forced a government shutdown for healthcare for illegals. They own this.
