The US Department of Justice (DOJ) has urged a New York appeals court to overturn former President Donald Trump’s hush money conviction, arguing that the verdict was based on improper evidence and that the underlying legal theory conflicts with federal law. In a significant legal intervention, the DOJ aligned itself with Trump’s defense, contending that the Manhattan District Attorney’s case encroached on federal jurisdiction and violated constitutional protections for presidential actions.
In a friend-of-the-court brief filed Friday with the New York State Appellate Division, the Justice Department said Trump’s conviction on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records—linked to the alleged concealment of a hush money payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels—should be vacated. Prosecutors argued that the payments were made to suppress a damaging story ahead of the 2016 election. But the DOJ now maintains that the conviction relied on “legally defective” evidence and interpretations inconsistent with federal authority.
The filing represents a rare instance of the federal government siding with a sitting president against a state criminal conviction. The Justice Department stated that jurors had been improperly allowed to consider evidence related to Trump’s official presidential duties, and that under federal law, only federal authorities may prosecute violations of federal election statutes. “Federal law preempts the use of alleged violations of federal election law as a predicate for state charges,” the DOJ brief said.
It further asserted that the trial court’s decision to include evidence of Trump’s official actions—such as communications with Attorney General Jeff Sessions and White House Communications Director Hope Hicks—was constitutionally impermissible. “Introducing such evidence at trial can never be harmless,” the department said, warning that it risked undermining the principle of presidential immunity established by the Supreme Court.
The Justice Department’s position heavily cites the Supreme Court’s July 2024 ruling, which granted presidents immunity from criminal prosecution for “official acts” undertaken while in office. The Court’s decision also prohibits prosecutors from referencing official conduct when pursuing charges based on private behaviour. The DOJ said this precedent directly applies to Trump’s conviction and that his trial judge, Justice Juan Merchan, should have excluded evidence tied to presidential decision-making.
“To allow any of the nation’s more than 2,300 local prosecutors to indict a former President for his official conduct would risk chilling every President in the vigorous discharge of his duties,” the filing stated. It acknowledged that Merchan’s trial predated the Supreme Court ruling but insisted that the constitutional protection applies retroactively.
The Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, led by Alvin Bragg, which secured Trump’s conviction in May 2024, declined to comment on the DOJ’s filing.
The Justice Department’s intervention adds fresh momentum to Trump’s appeal and could reshape how presidential immunity is interpreted in future prosecutions. It also deepens the legal and political implications of Trump’s case, which has been described as the first criminal conviction of a sitting or former US president.
Separately, a federal appeals court on Thursday ordered a Manhattan district judge to reconsider Trump’s request to transfer the case from state to federal jurisdiction—a move that could expedite review and potential exoneration. The state appeals process, by contrast, could take several years.
Justice Merchan, who presided over Trump’s six-week trial, sentenced him on January 10, 2025, to an unconditional discharge, meaning no jail time, fines, or probation. The judge said the sentence aimed to “minimise disruption” as Trump prepared to assume his second presidential term 10 days later.
Legal experts say the DOJ’s latest brief marks a pivotal shift, suggesting that federal and state prosecutors may now be at odds over the boundaries of presidential accountability. If the New York appeals court accepts the Justice Department’s reasoning, it could not only vacate Trump’s conviction but also establish sweeping new limits on state-level prosecutions involving federal officials.
For now, Trump’s legal team has hailed the development as a vindication of their argument that the Manhattan case was “politically motivated” and unconstitutional. With the DOJ now on his side, Trump’s path toward overturning the conviction—and securing full legal exoneration—appears stronger than ever.
