Donald Trump's New York hush-money conviction remains the sole surviving criminal case against him as of mid-May 2026, with appellate proceedings continuing through the state court system and a potential path to the U.S. Supreme Court still open [1]. The case centers on 34 counts of falsifying business records, on which a Manhattan jury returned guilty verdicts in May 2024 [1]. At sentencing on Jan. 10, 2025, the trial court imposed an unconditional discharge, meaning Trump faces no jail time, probation, or fine arising from the conviction [1].
The broader criminal docket that once surrounded Trump has been cleared. The Justice Department closed both federal prosecutions, one tied to alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election and one arising from the Mar-a-Lago classified-documents matter, citing longstanding DOJ policy against indicting or prosecuting a sitting president [1]. The Georgia racketeering case, which had been brought by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, was subsequently dismissed after Willis was disqualified from the matter and a newly appointed special prosecutor elected not to continue it [1]. Those closures leave the Manhattan proceeding as the only active criminal matter.
The New York appeal turns on whether the conviction can stand given the intervening U.S. Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity, the question of whether evidence drawn from Trump's federal conduct was improperly admitted at trial, and related arguments about the intersection of state prosecution and federal office [1]. The New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest tribunal, is positioned as a key venue; a ruling there adverse to Trump would set up a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court [1]. The immunity question carries weight beyond this case: the High Court's 2024 immunity decision in Trump v. United States established that former presidents retain substantial protection for official acts, and lower courts are still working out the doctrine's outer boundaries.
The practical stakes are limited in the conventional sense. An unconditional discharge means the conviction's consequences are largely symbolic and reputational, not punitive. The legal stakes, however, remain significant. A ruling on how far presidential immunity reaches into pre-inauguration, private conduct could define the scope of state-court jurisdiction over sitting and former presidents for decades. Briefing schedules and oral argument dates before the New York appellate courts had not been publicly confirmed as of the publication of the underlying source material [1].