Federal Judge Rules That 'Paying Hush Money to an Adult Film Star' Is Not Protected by Immunity

A federal judge in New York rejected President Donald Trump's third attempt on Friday to overturn his state hush money conviction. U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein ruled that covering up personal embarrassments does not qualify for presidential immunity.

The Manhattan prosecution stems from a payment made to adult film actor Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election to suppress her claims of a sexual encounter. Trump was convicted in May 2024 on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records, later receiving an unconditional discharge.

The May 2024 guilty verdict made Trump the first U.S. president to be convicted of a crime. His legal team has repeatedly tried to shift the case into federal jurisdiction to get the indictment dismissed.

Hellerstein called the president's reasons for renewing the request 'neither new nor legally sufficient' in his written decision. He declared that paying hush money to an adult film star or engaging in a cover-up is not subsumed in presidential immunity.

In a blunt statement, the Manhattan judge reminded defence lawyers that 'Federal district courts are not certifying clerks' for appellate courts. He added that hiding personal scandals falls outside official White House responsibilities.

The decision highlights how courts view the boundary between personal conduct and executive duties. Paying off an adult film star remains private conduct regardless of high office.

Tactical Delays and Strategic Gamble

This marks the third time the federal court in Manhattan has refused to seize control of the state case. The second circuit court of appeals had previously instructed Hellerstein to review whether official White House acts were used as trial evidence.

Appellate judges asked the lower court to examine whether Trump acted diligently in seeking federal intervention after his conviction. They also questioned whether removal remains legally possible after a state court has already sentenced a defendant.

During oral arguments in February 2026, Hellerstein slammed defence lawyers for trying to take 'two bites at the apple' through repeated filings. He questioned why they waited nearly two months after a Supreme Court ruling before seeking federal aid.

Instead of filing in federal court immediately, Trump's lawyers first asked state trial judge Juan Merchan to throw out the verdict. Hellerstein deemed that delay a 'quintessential strategic decision' that the defence later viewed as a poor choice.

Defence attorney Jeffrey Wall argued that prosecutors rushed to trial without waiting for the high court decision on immunity. He told the court that lawyers were crunched for time because sentencing was scheduled just 10 days later.

Constitutional Battles Ahead in Manhattan

The jurisdictional fight tested the limits of procedural rules. The defense argued they were operating under tight deadlines, but Judge Hellerstein ruled they had forfeited their right to federal intervention by voluntarily choosing to litigate the Supreme Court's immunity decision in state court first.

Spokespersons for President Trump immediately condemned the Manhattan ruling, calling the federal decision 'baseless and lawless' in a statement. They confirmed that a powerful appeal to the second circuit court would be filed without delay.

The defence maintains that the historic Supreme Court ruling on immunity mandates an immediate dismissal of the Manhattan prosecution. They argue that trial testimony from former White House aides infringed upon constitutional protections.

However, Hellerstein firmly rejected the idea that private cover-ups fall within the 'outer perimeter' of presidential responsibilities. He noted that paying hush money or hiding personal embarrassment remains purely unofficial conduct.

Trump continues to challenge his criminal conviction through the pending state appellate process in New York. State prosecutors did not immediately respond to requests for comment following the release of the federal order.

The ongoing appeal will test whether high court precedent can shield a sitting president from prior state court convictions. For now, the Manhattan verdict stands firmly in place while higher judges review the complex jurisdictional fight.