President Donald Trump has filed a formal appeal with New York’s Appellate Division, First Department, seeking to overturn his conviction for falsifying business records in the so-called hush-money case. In a 96-page brief submitted on Monday, his legal team argues that the trial in Manhattan was fatally compromised by judicial bias and improper admission of evidence.
The conviction dates back to May 30, 2024, when a jury found Trump guilty on 34 counts stemming from efforts to reimburse his former lawyer, Michael Cohen, for the payment of US$130,000 to adult-film actor Stormy Daniels ahead of the 2016 presidential election. Although the judge later granted an unconditional discharge on 10 January 2025—meaning no jail time or fine was imposed—Trump remains a convicted felon unless an appellate court vacates the verdict.
In their brief, Trump’s attorneys contend that the evidence relied upon by the prosecution included testimony and social-media posts that the defence says were tied to Trump’s official presidential acts, thereby invoking the doctrine of presidential immunity. They assert that a decision by the US Supreme Court establishing broad immunity for official acts means key portions of the Manhattan case should have been precluded. They also challenge the impartiality of trial judge Juan Merchan, pointing to his past political donations and his daughter’s employment with a digital-agency firm serving Democratic campaigns.
Prosecutors in Manhattan reject those claims, stating that the evidence at issue related to Trump’s personal conduct rather than his official duties as president. They maintain the judge’s earlier ruling held that the laws were applied appropriately and that there was no basis for recusal.
The appeal position outlines two parallel pathways: one through the New York state appellate system and another through a separate petition to shift the criminal case into the federal system, which could lead to review by the US Supreme Court.
The broader context highlights that Trump became the first former US president to be convicted of felony charges when the Manhattan verdict was delivered last year. Polling indicates the conviction remains a polarising issue among voters, particularly as Trump positions himself for another presidential bid. Legal analysts note that the appellate route poses significant hurdles: the defence must persuade the appeals court that the trial judge erred in law or fact, or that the evidence was wrongly admitted. Many of these arguments were already raised during the trial but rejected.
The legal strategy is closely tied to Trump’s political ambitions. By seeking to erase a felony conviction, Trump and his team aim to clear what they describe as a political crosshairs and remove what they view as a barrier to his return to the White House. Supporters argue that the case represents selective prosecution, while critics argue that the criminal justice system must hold powerful individuals to the same standards as everyone else.
The appeal document frames the trial as “one of the most politically charged prosecutions in American history,” arguing that the jury was permitted to consider evidence about Mr Trump’s conduct in office that should have been protected under the immunity ruling.
While the appeal is underway, questions linger over its timing and potential impact. Some analysts expect a significant delay before the Appellate Division issues a decision, given the complexity of the arguments and the potential implications for presidential immunity jurisprudence. Others highlight that even if Trump were to prevail at the state level, the case may still be appealed to New York’s highest court and then to the US Supreme Court—if that body deems it worthy of review.