Donald Trump’s effort to move New York’s criminal hush money case to federal court from state court was rejected by a U.S. judge, the latest setback for the former president as he seeks a return to the White House.

Trump has “failed to show the conduct charged by the indictment is for, or relating to, any act performed by or for the president,” U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein said in his ruling today.

Hellerstein held an almost three-hour-long hearing last month, at which he voiced skepticism over Trump’s argument that he made payments to a porn star in his capacity as president. Trump argued the case belonged in federal court because the alleged crimes occurred while he was in office and immune from prosecution. Federal court might have proved a more favorable setting for his defense.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg alleges that during the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump directed his then-lawyer Michael Cohen to pay $130,000 to Stormy Daniels to buy her silence about an alleged sexual encounter that he has denied. Prosecutors say Trump later reimbursed Cohen, claiming the payments were for legitimate legal work. In an indictment in March, Trump was charged with 34 counts of falsifying business records.

Trump’s lawyers contended that the falsification charges should be considered violations of U.S. election law, pre-empting the state’s authority to bring the case.

The ruling by Hellerstein, appointed to the bench in 1998 by President Bill Clinton, is another headache for Trump, the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination for 2024. His lawyers had already unsuccessfully sought to remove New York State Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan from the case, arguing he is biased against their client. They have criticized his rulings in a trial against the Trump Organization last year in which the firm was convicted.

Merchan has scheduled the hush money trial to begin March 25.

Why the Battle?

Trump may have sought to move the case out of state court to gain a couple of tactical advantages, said Daniel Richman, a professor at Columbia Law School.

One is that the pool from which federal juries in Manhattan are drawn includes three upstate counties, Putnam, Orange and Sullivan, that Trump won in 2020. A state case would be heard by a jury made up only of residents of Manhattan, where President Joe Biden won 84.5% of the vote.

Richman said Trump might also seek the upper hand in federal court by arguing that as a former president, he is immune from prosecution.

“But the default explanation is just to delay and waste prosecutorial resources,” he said.

And a move to federal court would have removed Merchan from the picture.

Latest Blow

Bragg’s case was the first time a current or former president had ever been indicted. Trump was then indicted again in June, in federal court in Florida, by a grand jury over his handling of classified government documents. He has pleaded not guilty in the two cases and maintains that both, along with other cases and investigations he faces, are part of a broader Democratic effort to derail his campaign.

While the documents case is probably the most serious threat facing Trump, other matters add to his legal exposure. Hellerstein’s ruling follows a blow the U.S. Justice Department dealt Trump on July 11 by reversing course after initially seeking to replace him as the defendant in writer E. Jean Carroll’s remaining defamation case, which would have ended that litigation.

In arguing that the hush money prosecution belonged in federal court, Trump’s lawyer Todd Blanche cited Bragg’s decision “to wrongfully prosecute” his client “for lawful conduct that took place while the president was in office.” He said the alleged payments occurred from February to December 2017 while Trump was acting within his authority as president.

Prosecutor Matthew Colangelo argued the payments had nothing to do with Trump’s duties.

“Writing personal checks, even if he did it in the Oval Office, is not an official act,” he said.

During the June 27 hearing, the judge said the case might be best handled in the court in which it was brought.

“There is no reason to believe an equal measure of justice couldn’t be rendered by the state court,” he said.

The case is New York v. Donald Trump, 23-cv-3773, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).