New York, November 7, 2025 – In a dramatic turn of events, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has come out in support of former President Donald Trump, urging a New York state appeals court to throw out his 2024 hush money conviction. The DOJ argued that the conviction was based on improper evidence and violated federal immunity protections that shield presidents from prosecution over official acts.
This latest filing, made on Friday in Manhattan’s appellate court, marks a significant legal and political development — and could redefine the limits of presidential immunity in the United States.
DOJ Joins Trump’s Bid to Overturn Conviction
The Justice Department submitted an amicus brief (friend-of-the-court filing) that echoed Trump’s long-standing claim: that his conviction for falsifying business records should be nullified because it relied on actions taken during his presidency.
The DOJ stated, “Introducing evidence of official acts at trial can never be harmless,” emphasizing that such evidence violated the constitutional principle of executive immunity.
The filing supports Trump’s argument that his 34 felony counts, tied to allegedly concealing payments made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels, were tainted by the inclusion of official presidential conduct in the prosecution’s case.
Federal Law vs. State Prosecution
The Justice Department’s stance highlights a growing tension between federal and state legal authority. In the brief, the department maintained that federal law preempts state prosecutors from bringing cases that rely on alleged violations of federal election laws — as was done in Trump’s hush money case.
According to the DOJ, New York prosecutors erred by allowing jurors to consider whether Trump’s reimbursement to his lawyer, Michael Cohen, was meant to conceal a violation of federal campaign finance rules.
In simple terms, the DOJ argued that a state court cannot prosecute a former president for federal election-related offenses, even indirectly. This interpretation, if upheld, could have sweeping implications for how state-level prosecutors pursue cases involving former or sitting presidents.
Landmark Supreme Court Ruling Changes the Game
The Justice Department’s position relies heavily on the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in July 2024, which ruled that presidents are immune from prosecution for official acts taken while in office. The Court also held that prosecutors cannot introduce evidence of such acts in unrelated criminal trials involving private behavior.
The DOJ’s filing argued that Trump’s New York trial judge, Justice Juan Merchan, improperly allowed prosecutors to reference Trump’s communications with then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions and former White House Communications Director Hope Hicks — both considered part of his official duties as president.
By allowing this evidence, the DOJ claims, the trial was unfairly influenced, and therefore, the conviction cannot stand.
“Chilling Effect” on Future Presidents
The Justice Department also warned of broader constitutional risks if the conviction is allowed to stand.
“To allow any of the nation’s more than 2,300 prosecutors’ offices to indict a former president for official conduct would risk chilling every president in the vigorous discharge of the duties of his office,” the brief stated.
In essence, the DOJ argues that subjecting presidents to potential prosecution for their official actions would paralyze the executive branch, making future leaders hesitant to perform their duties freely.
This argument mirrors concerns raised by constitutional scholars, who have long debated whether immunity protections should extend to former presidents once they leave office.
A Complex Legal Timeline
Trump’s hush money trial concluded in May 2024, resulting in a historic conviction — the first time a former U.S. president was found guilty of a felony.
The case stemmed from allegations that Trump falsified business records to conceal payments made to Stormy Daniels during the 2016 presidential campaign, allegedly to prevent damaging stories from surfacing before the election.
Following a six-week trial, the jury convicted Trump on 34 counts, but the Justice Department now argues that the trial’s foundation was legally flawed.
Trump’s Sentence and the Path Forward
Judge Juan Merchan sentenced Trump in January 2025 to an unconditional discharge, a rare form of sentencing in which no jail time or probation is imposed. Merchan stated that the sentence aimed to ensure finality and prevent disruption as Trump prepared for his second presidential term, which began ten days later.
However, Trump’s legal team immediately filed an appeal, arguing that the conviction violated his constitutional immunity and was driven by political motives.
Now, with the Justice Department itself siding with Trump, the case could move toward an unprecedented reversal — potentially erasing one of the most controversial criminal convictions in U.S. history.
Reactions from Key Players
A spokesperson for Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, whose office led the prosecution, declined to comment on the DOJ’s filing.
Legal experts say the Justice Department’s intervention is highly unusual. “It’s rare for the federal government to take a position that directly supports a former president’s criminal appeal in a state case,” said Professor Linda Kaplan, a constitutional law scholar at Columbia University.
“This filing underscores how the Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling on presidential immunity has reshaped the entire legal landscape,” Kaplan added.
Meanwhile, Trump’s team celebrated the DOJ’s stance as “a victory for the Constitution and the rule of law.”
In a post on Truth Social, Trump wrote, “The DOJ has confirmed what we’ve been saying from day one — the witch hunt in New York was unconstitutional, politically motivated, and should be thrown out immediately.”
Federal Appeals Court Adds Another Twist
Just one day before the DOJ’s brief, a federal appeals court ordered a Manhattan district judge to reconsider Trump’s request to transfer his case from state to federal court.
If granted, the transfer could speed up Trump’s potential exoneration, as federal courts are generally seen as more favorable venues for executive privilege claims.
Legal analysts note that the state appeals process could take years, while a move to federal court might dramatically shorten the timeline.
The Bigger Picture: Legal Immunity and Political Fallout
The Justice Department’s involvement in the Trump case highlights an evolving national debate: How far should presidential immunity go?
Supporters of the DOJ’s position argue that it’s necessary to protect the integrity of the executive branch, ensuring that presidents can act decisively without fear of post-term prosecution.
Critics, however, warn that expanding immunity could effectively place presidents above the law, undermining accountability and eroding public trust in democratic institutions.
“The real question isn’t just about Trump,” said political analyst David Harris. “It’s about whether future presidents can face justice for actions that cross ethical or legal lines.”
Conclusion
The Justice Department’s decision to back Donald Trump’s appeal marks a historic moment in American legal and political history.
By aligning itself with Trump’s immunity argument, the DOJ has opened a new chapter in the ongoing battle over presidential accountability and separation of powers.
If the New York appeals court agrees and overturns Trump’s conviction, it could set a powerful precedent for how former presidents are treated under the law — and how far immunity protections extend after leaving office.
As the case progresses, one thing remains clear: the outcome will not only shape Donald Trump’s legacy but could also redefine the limits of presidential power for generations to come.