Introduction
A year after former President Donald Trump was convicted on 34 felony counts related to a hush money scheme, he is continuing to appeal the case. ABC News reported on an upcoming hearing in which Trump’s legal team is attempting to move the state-level conviction to federal court—sparking considerable public interest and confusion. Users are particularly asking: What happens if a federal court agrees to reverse a criminal conviction that has already been sentenced? This fact-check investigates some of the most significant claims in the article and clarifies the legal stakes at play.
Historical Context
In May 2024, Donald Trump was found guilty by a Manhattan jury of falsifying business records to conceal hush money payments made during the 2016 presidential election. These payments, particularly to adult film actress Stormy Daniels, were allegedly intended to silence unfavorable stories to boost his electoral chances. The conviction marked a historic moment, as Trump became the first former or sitting U.S. president to be convicted of a crime. In January 2025, he was sentenced to an “unconditional discharge” by Judge Juan Merchan—avoiding jail time, fines, or probation—just days before reentering the White House following a new election win.
Claim #1: “A case can’t be removed to federal court after conviction.”
This statement, attributed to Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg, reflects a relevant legal standard under U.S. law. Removal of state-level criminal cases to federal court typically occurs before a trial under federal removal statutes (28 U.S. Code § 1442 and 1446). Courts overwhelmingly recognize that attempts to remove a case after conviction contradict established procedures. Legal scholars and precedent suggest that post-conviction removal is not legally viable or historically supported. Therefore, Bragg’s assertion is aligned with current legal interpretations.
Source: Cornell Law School – 28 U.S. Code § 1442
Claim #2: “Trump was sentenced to an ‘unconditional discharge’—without prison, fines, or probation.”
This claim is accurate. As reported by multiple media outlets and confirmed in official court documents, Judge Juan Merchan sentenced Trump by issuing an “unconditional discharge,” citing the position Trump was about to assume as the re-elected President of the United States. An unconditional discharge means no further penalties are imposed after the conviction. While unusual, such outcomes are permitted under New York Penal Law § 65.05, especially when a conviction exists but further punishment is deemed unnecessary or problematic due to constitutional concerns.
Source: New York Penal Law § 65.05
Claim #3: “The Supreme Court expanded the scope of presidential immunity after Trump’s state trial concluded.”
This claim is factual. In a June 2024 decision—Trump v. United States—the Supreme Court ruled that former presidents are entitled to immunity from prosecution for official acts conducted while in office. However, this expansion came after Trump’s conviction in state court and was not applied retroactively to his case. As such, neither Judge Merchan nor two New York appeals courts considered it applicable at the time. Trump’s legal team argues that had the ruling been in place earlier, some of the evidence used—such as tweets and testimony linked to official acts—would have been inadmissible. However, the Supreme Court declined to vacate the conviction based on that decision, stating that such challenges should proceed through the regular appeals process.
Source: SCOTUSblog – Trump v. United States Ruling
Claim #4: “Former Trump defense attorneys now hold senior roles in the Department of Justice.”
This statement is partially misleading. The article claims that Trump’s former attorneys—Todd Blanche and Emil Bove—now serve as deputy attorney general and principal associate deputy attorney general, respectively. Public records and DOJ directories do not confirm these appointments as of June 2025. While it is true that Trump previously nominated allies to federal roles, there is currently no verifiable evidence that both named individuals have assumed the top DOJ posts claimed in the article. Additionally, Trump has publicly stated he intends to nominate Emil Bove to the US Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, but that nomination has not been confirmed.
Source: U.S. Department of Justice – Leadership Directory
Conclusion
ABC News provides a generally factual report on Trump’s ongoing efforts to overturn his hush money conviction. However, certain statements—particularly about DOJ personnel—lack solid verification and present speculative claims as outcomes. The article also fails to elaborate on the highly unusual nature of trying to remove a state conviction to federal court after sentencing, which is legally unprecedented. While the broader legal narrative is accurate and editorially restrained, claims relying on speculative appointments and legal theories require more careful sourcing. Most significant developments cited have been confirmed through public records or high court decisions. Overall, the article is largely accurate but includes some minor ambiguities that could mislead readers unfamiliar with complex legal nuances.
Engage with the Facts—Stay Informed
Tired of guessing what’s true and what’s not? Download the DBUNK app today to access transparent, in-depth fact-checks instantly. Join thousands advancing truth in journalism.
Follow us on social media and submit your own fact-check requests for free.
