10:04 pm - February 18, 2026
A federal judge is scheduled to hear arguments Wednesday in President Donald Trump’s ongoing effort to overturn his hush money conviction, following an appeals court directive to reconsider whether the case should move from state to federal court. U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein will revisit his previous decision after the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in November that he failed to address key issues related to presidential immunity.
The three-judge appeals panel determined that Hellerstein did not adequately consider whether evidence presented at trial involved official presidential acts that could be protected under immunity. According to the court’s ruling, the judge must now examine whether the prosecution relied on evidence of official conduct and how that might affect jurisdiction. Trump will not attend the proceedings in New York City, though his legal team and the Manhattan district attorney’s office have submitted extensive written arguments.
Presidential Immunity Claims Central to Legal Battle
The dispute centers on whether Trump’s hush money conviction involved personal conduct or official presidential actions. Hellerstein, who was nominated by President Bill Clinton, has twice denied requests to transfer the case to federal court. His most recent denial followed Trump’s May 2024 conviction and a subsequent U.S. Supreme Court ruling establishing that presidents cannot be prosecuted for official acts performed while in office.
In that ruling, Hellerstein concluded that Trump’s legal team had not met the burden of proof required to change jurisdiction. The judge determined the conviction for falsifying business records involved Trump’s personal life rather than official duties protected by presidential immunity.
Appeals Court Identifies Key Evidentiary Questions
However, the 2nd Circuit panel found this analysis insufficient. The appeals court stated that Hellerstein must determine whether certain trial evidence relates to immunized official acts and whether such evidentiary immunity could transform the hush money case into one involving protected presidential conduct.
Additionally, the panel outlined specific factors Hellerstein must weigh if he finds the prosecution used evidence of official acts. These include assessing whether Trump can argue those actions were part of his White House responsibilities, whether he diligently pursued moving the case to federal court, and whether jurisdiction can even be transferred after conviction and sentencing in state court.
Background of the Hush Money Conviction
Trump was convicted in May 2024 of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to conceal a payment to adult film actor Stormy Daniels. The payment was allegedly made to prevent Daniels from publicly discussing her claim of an affair with Trump, which could have damaged his 2016 presidential campaign. The former president has consistently denied Daniels’ allegations and maintains he committed no wrongdoing.
Meanwhile, Trump received an unconditional discharge as his sentence, leaving the conviction on record but imposing no punishment. The Republican president has separately asked a state appellate court to overturn the conviction entirely, pursuing multiple legal avenues to challenge the verdict.
District Attorney Opposes Jurisdictional Transfer
The Manhattan district attorney’s office, which prosecuted the case, argues it should remain in state court. Prosecutors have submitted written arguments opposing Trump’s attempt to move the case to federal jurisdiction, where immunity claims could potentially lead to dismissal. The office maintains that the conduct at issue was private rather than official in nature.
Judge Hellerstein’s decision following Wednesday’s hearing could significantly impact the future of Trump’s conviction. The timing of any ruling remains uncertain, and either side may pursue further appeals depending on the outcome of this reconsideration.
