President Donald Trump is set to take another swing at overturning the only criminal conviction ever handed down to a sitting U.S. president, as a federal appeals court is set to hear arguments Wednesday over whether his New York hush money case should have been removed from state court.

The hearing before the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan marks the latest turn in People of the State of New York v. Trump, the unprecedented case that resulted in 34 felony convictions for falsifying business records. While Trump received an unconditional discharge and avoided jail time, the conviction has continued to haunt his presidency — symbolically if not practically.

Recommended Stories

• Democrats strain for nuance in defending Los Angeles protesters
• New Jersey’s gubernatorial race sets up test for Democratic and GOP messaging on Trump
• Inside Scoop: Trump-Musk breakup, game of drones, artificial food dye fight

Trump was sentenced on Jan. 10 by New York Judge Juan Merchan, who issued an unconditional discharge, meaning the then-president-elect would receive no prison time, probation, or further penalties. The sentencing, which came just days before Trump retook office, underscored the historic nature of his conviction as the first president to enter the White House with a felony record still intact.

Now back in office for a second term, Trump is seeking a federal forum, rather than a state court, to argue that the prosecution was not only politically motivated but also constitutionally flawed.

The legal theory behind the appeal hinges on a renewed claim that the conduct at the center of the case — the alleged falsification of checks reimbursing attorney Michael Cohen for a $130,000 hush money payment to porn star Stormy Daniels — involved official acts taken during Trump’s first term in the White House.

Trump’s lawyers are asking the appellate panel to reverse the prior rulings of U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein, who twice rejected attempts to remove the case to federal court, ruling that the conduct was “private, unofficial acts, outside the bounds of executive authority.” In their latest filing, Trump’s team argued that Hellerstein’s conclusions are outdated in light of the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Trump v. United States last year, which held that presidents enjoy presumptive immunity for official acts.

Leading the charge this time is Jeff Wall, a former acting solicitor general and Supreme Court advocate with Sullivan & Cromwell. He replaces Trump’s trial attorneys, Emil Bove and Todd Blanche, who now hold senior positions in the Trump administration. Blanche, who once resigned from his law firm to represent Trump, now serves as deputy attorney general. Bove, who helped handle Trump’s cross-examination of Cohen, has been nominated to a federal appeals court seat.

Wall will argue that the case should have been removed from state court under the federal officer removal statute, citing Supremacy Clause concerns and saying Trump was targeted by “hostile local officials,” including Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, an elected Democrat, and Judge Juan Merchan. Trump’s team described the prosecution as “an unprecedented and baseless” effort to take down a sitting president, driven by political animus and facilitated by a biased judiciary.

Bragg’s office maintains that the case is closed — literally. In its brief filed in January, prosecutors argued that “removal is unavailable once final judgment has been entered in the state proceeding,” and that Trump is too late to pursue this strategy. Removal, it contends, is a pretrial mechanism intended to protect federal officials from state court litigation before a verdict is rendered.

“This case is over,” Bragg’s team said.

However, Trump’s attorneys said the matter remains alive because the conviction is still on the books — and because it implicates unsettled constitutional questions about federal supremacy and the legal exposure of a sitting president. They also pointed to Merchan’s conduct, including a gag order, contempt rulings, and a small political donation to a Democratic cause, as grounds for federal review.

Trump, who has long denied having had any sexual encounter with Daniels, argued that the payments were part of a standard legal retainer and denies knowing of any unlawful scheme. The prosecution, led by Bragg, theorized in court that the reimbursements were falsified in furtherance of a separate and unspecified crime — a move by prosecutors that critics said was legally creative, if not tenuous. That maneuver allowed Bragg to elevate misdemeanor business record violations into felonies.

Trump’s defense team argued that Cohen lacked credibility and that Trump, unaware of any wrongdoing, was simply signing checks tied to a legal retainer. Daniels has said the money was intended to cover up the alleged sexual encounter she said took place with Trump at a 2006 celebrity golf tournament in Lake Tahoe.

Despite losing the trial, Trump’s legal team has claimed vindication of a different sort: Bove and Blanche have been promoted to top legal posts in his administration’s Justice Department. Trump’s other former defense attorney, D. John Sauer, is the solicitor general fighting to uphold his executive agenda policies in federal court.

Meanwhile, Trump’s legal fortunes have shifted dramatically since his conviction last May. Both of his federal indictments, one over the Jan. 6 riot and the other involving classified documents, were dropped under long-standing DOJ policy barring prosecution of a sitting president. The election racketeering case in Georgia stalled indefinitely after the state appeals court removed Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, also an elected Democrat, from the prosecution.

With those cases sidelined, the New York conviction now stands alone as the sole election-season criminal case against Trump to produce a verdict. The appeal will be heard by a three-judge panel of the 2nd Circuit: Judge Raymond J. Lohier Jr., nominated by former President Barack Obama; Judge Susan L. Carney, appointed by Obama; and Judge Myrna Perez, appointed by former President Joe Biden.

No timeline for a ruling is guaranteed. However, should Trump prevail, it could open the door for removing the cases to a federal court, where Trump could seek to have the charges dismissed entirely or demand a new trial under federal procedures. Because he is the sitting president, Trump could not face a federal trial while in office.

ONE YEAR AFTER HIS HUSH MONEY CONVICTION IN NEW YORK, TRUMP BATTLES LAWFARE

If he loses his bid, he may begin the appeals of his conviction in state court.

Whether the court views the case as a live controversy or a closed chapter will help define Trump’s legal future and the scope of federal court power in reviewing state-level prosecutions of federal officials.