Trump Aims For Win in Stormy Daniels Case

Will Appeals Court Overrule Judge, 92, Who Refuses To Move Prosecution to Federal Court?

Published on Feb. 9, 2026

The question of whether the Stormy Daniels prosecution belongs in a federal forum could soon draw in the Supreme Court. The Manhattan district attorney, Alvin Bragg, argues that the Supreme Court immunity ruling does not relate to President Trump's hush-money conviction.

Why it matters

This case could have significant implications for the separation of powers between federal and state courts, as well as the scope of presidential immunity from prosecution. The outcome could set an important precedent for how high-profile political cases are handled.

The details

The Manhattan district attorney, Alvin Bragg, is arguing that the Supreme Court's immunity ruling does not apply to President Trump's hush-money conviction related to the Stormy Daniels case. Bragg wants the case to remain in state court, but the 92-year-old judge presiding over the case has refused to move it to federal court as requested by Trump's legal team.

  • The Stormy Daniels prosecution began in 2026.

The players

Alvin Bragg

The Manhattan district attorney who is prosecuting the Stormy Daniels case against former President Trump.

Donald Trump

The former president who is facing prosecution in the Stormy Daniels hush-money case.

Stormy Daniels

The adult film actress at the center of the hush-money case against former President Trump.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“The Supreme Court immunity ruling does not relate to President Trump's hush-money conviction.”

— Alvin Bragg, Manhattan District Attorney

What’s next

The appeals court will soon decide whether to overrule the 92-year-old judge and move the case to federal court as requested by Trump's legal team.

The takeaway

This high-profile case could set an important precedent for the balance of power between federal and state courts when it comes to prosecuting former presidents, with significant implications for the rule of law and separation of powers.