The U.S. Justice Department has thrown unexpected weight behind Donald Trump’s appeal, telling a New York court that his hush money conviction should be wiped away — arguing that the case was built on flawed evidence and legal overreach.
In a filing to a Manhattan appeals court, federal officials aligned with Trump’s position that his actions as president should be protected under the doctrine of official immunity. The department said the trial court’s decision to admit evidence tied to Trump’s conduct as president “can never be harmless,” suggesting that such evidence tainted the entire case.
The government also asserted that federal election law supersedes state prosecution on the matter, arguing that New York jurors should not have been asked to consider whether Trump violated federal campaign rules when he allegedly concealed payments to adult film actor Stormy Daniels ahead of the 2016 election.
The Justice Department’s brief was submitted as a “friend of the court” filing, supporting Trump’s effort to overturn his 34-count conviction for falsifying business records — a verdict reached in May 2024. While courts are not required to weigh such filings in their rulings, the statement adds a new dimension to a case already tangled in politics, legal theory, and presidential privilege.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office, which secured the conviction, declined to comment.
The Justice Department leaned heavily on the Supreme Court’s July 2024 decision that shielded presidents from criminal prosecution over official acts. That ruling also bars prosecutors from introducing evidence of official duties in cases related to private conduct — a standard the department now says Trump’s trial violated.
According to the brief, the judge in Trump’s case erred by allowing testimony about Trump’s conversations with then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions and White House aide Hope Hicks regarding the fallout from the hush money allegations. Allowing local prosecutors, the department warned, to criminally pursue a former president for acts tied to official responsibilities could “chill every President in the vigorous discharge of the duties of his office.”
The Justice Department acknowledged that Trump’s six-week trial concluded before the Supreme Court clarified presidential immunity, suggesting the trial judge, Juan Merchan, could not have foreseen the new precedent.
In a separate move, a federal appeals court on Thursday directed a lower court to reconsider Trump’s request to transfer his case from state to federal jurisdiction — a shift that could accelerate efforts to overturn the conviction.
Trump was sentenced in January to an “unconditional discharge,” a legally rare outcome that spared him further punishment and was intended, the judge said, to minimize political disruption as Trump prepared to assume his second term in office.
