A New York state appellate panel is considering President Donald Trump’s personal challenge to his criminal hush money conviction, extending a legal battle that continued even after he returned to office. Whatever the panel decides, its ruling is unlikely to settle the case for good.

Before Trump’s return to the White House in January 2025, a divided U.S. Supreme Court declined to stop his criminal sentencing in New York. Four of the court’s six GOP appointed justices dissented from the decision allowing the proceeding to move forward.

The five justice majority offered two principal reasons for leaving the sentencing intact. First, Trump was set to receive an unconditional discharge, which amounted to essentially no penalty.

Second, the majority said that “the alleged evidentiary violations at President-Elect Trump’s state-court trial can be addressed in the ordinary course on appeal.” Nearly two years later, that supposedly ordinary appellate process remains underway.

Trump’s personal lawyer Robert Giuffra appeared in a Manhattan courtroom Thursday to argue the president’s appeal in the hush money case. The evidentiary issues highlighted by the Supreme Court were among the arguments presented to the five judge appellate panel.

Trump was convicted of falsifying business records to conceal a hush money scheme connected to the 2016 presidential race. His lawyers contend that some evidence used to obtain the conviction at his spring 2024 trial conflicted with the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity ruling issued that summer.

The hush money scheme itself was not an official presidential act covered by immunity. Trump’s attorneys, however, have relied on the immunity ruling’s separate prohibition against using evidence of official acts to secure convictions involving unofficial conduct.

Their argument points to evidence connected to Trump’s first term in office. That material included discussions with White House communications director Hope Hicks, social media statements, a discussion with the attorney general and testimony concerning White House operations.

Presidential immunity was not the only issue before the panel Thursday. Much of the hearing focused on Giuffra’s contention that federal election law should have preempted Trump’s prosecution in New York.

The five judges directed difficult questions at both sides. Giuffra represented Trump, while Steven Wu argued in support of the conviction on behalf of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office.

Giuffra told the panel that the conviction was “infected by multiple fatal errors.” Wu responded that federal election law did not preempt the prosecution and that the case did not violate presidential immunity.

Wu also argued that any evidence admitted in error was harmless because of what he described as the overwhelming nature of the case against Trump. The panel must now weigh those competing positions as it considers whether the conviction can stand.

Even a ruling from the appellate panel probably would not mark the end of the fight. The case could still proceed to New York’s highest appeals court and potentially make another trip to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Trump’s attorneys have separately attempted to transfer the prosecution into federal court. That effort has not succeeded, leaving the state appellate process as the current path for challenging the conviction.

If the case eventually returns to the Supreme Court, Trump could face a bench that was already closely divided over whether his sentencing should proceed. The justices narrowly allowed that sentencing to move forward before his January 2025 return to office.

For now, the New York panel is considering claims involving presidential immunity, federal election law and allegedly improper evidence. The president’s criminal conviction therefore remains under review, with several possible layers of appeal still available after the panel delivers its decision.