The question of whether District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s criminal case against President Trump for hush money payments to the adult film star Stormy Daniels belongs in federal court will be heard by Judge Alvin Hellerstein, not his colleague on the bench, Ronnie Abrams, who was originally assigned the matter. 

That switch came after Judge Abrams recused herself from the case. That maneuver was noted in the docket confirmed by the District Court Executive for the Southern District of New York, Edward Friedland. Oral arguments will be held on June 27. Judge Hellerstein is no stranger to high profile cases, having presided over the producer Harvey Weinstein’s civil suit for rape. He called a proposed settlement in that matter ‘obnoxious.’  He is 89 years old.

The change in personnel comes after the question arose of whether Judge Abrams should recuse herself from deciding where Mr. Trump’s trial will be held. Recusal, which occurs when an official withdraws from a case over concerns of partiality or a conflict of interest, has of late been a hot issue at the Supreme Court, but it concerns lower court judges as well.     

The initial assignment to Judge Abrams raised the specter of a prior investigation, one that did not yield charges but that Mr. Trump has never quite gotten over: Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

The inquiry known as “Russiagate” crops up in relation to Mr. Trump’s tactical maneuvering because Judge Abrams’s husband is Greg Andres, who now works at the Davis Polk law firm but previously served as assistant special counsel for Russian interference in the 2016 election under Mr. Mueller.

Mr. Andres, who previously was an assistant United States attorney for the Eastern District of New York — and chief of its criminal division — has affected his wife’s ability to hear cases concerning Mr. Trump before. In 2017, she recused herself from two lawsuits against the president on account of her husband’s work.

Those suits alleged that Mr. Trump was in violation of the Emoluments Clause, which ordains that “no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under the United States, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.” There is also a domestic corollary, found in Article II, which was cited as well.  

A good government group accused Mr. Trump of violating the Constitution on account of his hotel and restaurant at the District of Columbia. The case was tossed due to standing by Judge Abrams’s replacement, Judge George Daniels. Reinstated by the riders of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, it was moot by the time the Supreme Court considered it. 

The Constitution’s Due Process clause mandates recusal where the judge has a financial interest in the case’s outcome or where there is otherwise a strong possibility that the judge’s decision will be biased.

The federal code allows a party to file an affidavit alleging that the judge “has a personal bias or prejudice either against him or in favor of any adverse party,” which triggers the procurement of another judge. The affidavit must “state the facts and the reasons for the belief that bias or prejudice exists” and be filed “in good faith.”

The Code of Conduct for United States Judges, which governs all federal judges save Supreme Court justices, ordains that a “judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” It adds that a “judge should not allow family, social, political, financial, or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment.”

Correction: May 5 was the date on which Judge Abrams recused herself from the question of  President Trump’s motion to remove to federal court the criminal case against him in New York County. An earlier edition of this story failed to report that the recusal had taken place.