The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit heard oral arguments Wednesday in President Donald Trump’s bid to remove his hush money conviction from New York state to federal court. The conviction was based on 34 counts of falsifying business records in connection with reimbursement payments made to Stormy Daniels.

Trump’s legal team from Sullivan & Cromwell—led by Jeffrey Wall and Robert Giuffra—contends that the case implicates presidential immunity, especially following the US Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling in Trump v. United States, which affirmed broad immunity for official acts. The defense contends that this landmark decision retroactively merits removal of the case to federal jurisdiction. The Trump team also contends that key evidence should have been excluded from the trial.

“Everything about this cries out for federal court,” Wall argued. “We can have our merits arguments back and forth on the scope of that evidentiary immunity, but the scope of a federal constitutional immunity for the President of the United States should be decided by this court and the Supreme Court, not by New York State courts.”

Prosecutors from Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office, led by appellate chief Steven Wu, countered that Trump’s conduct was private, pre-presidential, and that he missed deadlines to remove the case—raising procedural waiver concerns.

The three-judge panel—Susan Carney, Raymond Lohier Jr., Myrna Pérez—focused on whether post-conviction removal is procedurally viable and whether the new immunity precedent should apply retroactively. Judge Pérez noted, “It seems to me that we got a very big case that created a whole new world of presidential immunity, and that the boundaries are not clear at this point.”

The court has yet to issue a ruling or timeline; however, a removal could significantly shape subsequent appeals, possibly expediting eventual review by the Supreme Court and impacting Trump’s criminal record.