People of The State of New York v. Trump

Background

Donald Trump sought permission to file a second notice seeking to remove the criminal prosecution against him from the Supreme Court of New York to the federal district court. Under the federal removal statute, because Trump filed after the trial, he needed leave of the federal court and had to show good cause for filing late. A later notice could also rely on grounds that did not exist when the first notice was filed.

Trump offered two grounds for good cause. First, he argued that the New York courts were biased against him. He cited the state trial judge’s alleged conflict of interest, the judge’s daughter’s statements and political involvement, the judge’s prior contributions to Democratic politicians, the judge’s handling of presidential immunity, and the judge’s refusal to permit immediate review of that ruling. Second, Trump argued that the Supreme Court’s July 1, 2024 decision in the related presidential-immunity case protected him from prosecution.

Trump also alternatively asked to amend his first removal notice. The court denied that request as academic because the prosecution had already proceeded through trial.

Jurisdiction over the state-trial objections

The court ruled that it had no jurisdiction to consider Trump’s arguments about the propriety of the New York trial. Federal district courts generally have original jurisdiction, meaning they hear matters in the first instance; they do not function as appellate courts reviewing or changing state-court judgments. The court applied this principle, commonly associated with the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, to Trump’s allegations of bias, unfairness, and legal error.

The court said those objections belonged in the state appellate courts or, at the highest level, in the Supreme Court of the United States. For the same reason, it said Trump’s implicit request to stop the state sentencing scheduled for September 18, 2024, was outside the federal district court’s jurisdiction.

Presidential-immunity argument

The court considered Trump’s separate argument that the Supreme Court’s presidential-immunity decision protected him from prosecution. It summarized that decision as recognizing absolute immunity for a former President’s core constitutional powers, at least presumptive immunity for acts within the outer boundary of official responsibility, and no immunity for unofficial acts. Criminal courts must distinguish official from unofficial conduct.

The court relied on its earlier conclusion that hush-money payments and Trump’s reimbursement of Michael Cohen were private, unofficial acts unrelated to presidential duties. It noted that two reimbursement checks were signed by Trump in the White House, but concluded that this did not make the underlying conduct official. The court stated that the Supreme Court’s decision did not change its prior conclusion that the reimbursement was outside executive authority.

Disposition

The court concluded that it clearly appeared from the proposed removal notice and attached materials that removal should not be permitted. It found that good cause had not been shown and denied leave to remove the case. The Clerk was directed to terminate ECF No. 48. The court also denied Trump’s alternative request to amend the first removal notice as academic.