Trump bid to move hush money criminal case to federal court stalls

[BumRushDaShow]

Last edited Thu Sep 12, 2024, 06:37 PM - Edit history (1)

Source: Reuters

September 12, 2024 3:55 PM EDT Updated an hour ago


NEW YORK, Sept. 12 (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court on Thursday declined to interfere with a lower court decision to keep Donald Trump's already-decided criminal case over hush money paid to a porn star in state court, dealing another blow to the former U.S. president's bid to move the case to federal court.

On Aug. 29, nearly three months after he was convicted in the first-ever criminal trial of a U.S. president, Trump asked U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein to move the case from New York state court in Manhattan to federal court, arguing the trial violated his constitutional rights.

Trump, the Republican nominee for president in the Nov. 5 election, said that if the case were moved, he would ask the federal court to dismiss it altogether because jurors at trial saw evidence of his official acts as president. He said that violated the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark decision finding presidents have broad immunity from prosecution for official acts.

Hellerstein denied that request on Sept. 3, finding that the case dealt with "private, unofficial acts, outside the bounds of executive authority." Trump asked the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to put that decision on hold while it considered the merits of his appeal. A three-judge panel at the 2nd Circuit denied Trump's request, citing Justice Juan Merchan's delay of Trump's sentencing date to Nov. 26 from Sept. 18. Merchan wrote that he wanted to avoid the unwarranted perception of a political motive.

Read more: https://www.reuters.com/legal/trump-bid-move-hush-money-criminal-case-federal-court-stalls-2024-09-12/

[republianmushroom]

1. Lost again, little dude, second time today. Ouch !

[BaronChocula]

2. Was it stalled or quashed?

Everyone seems to be rejecting his request to move the case to federal court.

[BumRushDaShow]

4. It looks like this had been a request for the appeals court to put a hold on the district court ruling

in order to have the 2nd Circuit fully hear the arguments and the 2nd Circuit said "no" - apparently because the state case isn't really fully complete until the sentencing is done (which won't happen until November). But at some point, they will hear the appeal to decide on the merits.

[BaronChocula]

8. So the 2nd circuit will hear the appeal after sentencing?

I'm trying to wire my brain for this.

It's like headlines saying "District judge puts hold on ruling banning block against lower court order."

[BumRushDaShow]

9. Yes.

Reuters is a UK outlet and I suppose they could have done it like - "2nd Circuit 'denies emergency stay'" in the headline...

I think people are seeing why so many governmental authorities haven't bothered to prosecute him or give up and try to settle. And this is particularly true for NY, which should have done it 50 years ago, because he forces these barely-funded prosecutors to waste so many resources with "the best due process that money can buy".

[BaronChocula]

10. Thanks for all the clarification

[Tarzanrock]

3. The Turd's frivolous "motion" didn't "stall" -- it was "denied" by the 3 Justice panel.

Hey, Reuters, the Turd's frivolous motion to the Federal Appellate Court didn't "stall" as your "headline" falsely states -- that motion was denied by the 3 Justice panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit -- you fucking lying morons!

[BumRushDaShow]

5. Apparently the 2nd Circuit denied the request to put an emergency stay on the lower court ruling

until the 2nd Circuit can hear the case and they rejected that.

Here is the order (PDF viewer) - https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25137110-ny-v-trump-2nd-cir-uphold-lower-ct-denial-removal-091224?responsive=1&title=1

ORDER (PDF) - https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25137110/ny-v-trump-2nd-cir-uphold-lower-ct-denial-removal-091224.pdf

(snip)

Appellant moves to stay the district court’s September 4, 2024 order, which denied leave to file a second removal notice. See 28 U.S.C. §1455(b)(1), (2). In light of the state court’s adjournment of sentencing until November 26, 2024, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion for an emergency administrative stay is DENIED. See CA2 Local Rule 27.1(d). FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court Case: 24-2299, 09/12/2024, DktEntry: 31.1

So yes, it is "stalled" until the 2nd Circuit hears the arguments.

[C0RI0LANUS]

6. Trump can run, but he can't hide.

[iluvtennis]

7. Awesome news!

[moniss]

11. Now if he wants he can go to his friendly

SC to ask them to overrule and grant the emergency stay. But at this point he has gotten the most basic thing he wanted which was to get his sentencing postponed till after the election. Although his actions in Federal Court may not have directly ordered Merchan to do so I think he saw the real possibility that they might issue a stay of the sentencing itself and so it's a better move to take that possibility off the table and reduce one more claim of "he's biased and his daughter is out to get me and not delaying proves it" sort of nonsense claim that might get a Federal judge to throw him a bone.

So I think now he may be less likely to go to the SC right at this point on this removal matter. In fact the chances for him at the SC might be slightly better after losing the election since in the weeks before Inauguration Day they would maybe be able to slip him a favor or two without drawing quite as heated a public response as doing it before the election. It will depend on getting them to hear any issue and whether they want to be out on the limb for a destroyed, convicted candidate. I do think that eventually the SC is going to take one or more of these "but it was official acts" type cases. Whether it's soon enough to save him or not in any meaningful way we don't know. They may wait until they get one or two lower Federal Court rulings from proceedings that were decided after their horrendous broad ruling was issued. That would be a normal sort of progression when a new broad vague ruling has been issued by the Supreme Court on a "doctrine" sort of basis. They historically through the years allow some cases to originate down below and arguments be framed, briefed, decided and then they will take the lower cases up in order to give clarity and further definition of the parameters of the new doctrine.