Uh oh? 92-Year-Old Clinton Judge Takes Maduro Case

Adriana Stone 0 2 min read

They picked a 92-year-old Clinton appointee to run the Maduro prosecution in New York. It landed U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein on a case with global attention. That choice has conservatives fuming. They call it another example of New York’s legal theater.

Hellerstein is well known. He took senior status in 2011, yet still turns up in big matters. Over the years he’s issued rulings that drew political heat from the right. He’s weighed in on immigration detentions, congressional subpoenas, Michael Cohen’s confinement, and disputes tied to Donald Trump.

Some of his past orders are plain and pointed. In a 2018 asylum-detention case, he wrote that “autocracies of the world have been marked by harsh regimes of exclusion and detention,” and he ordered quicker hearings for certain detainees. That language and result put him at odds with the Trump administration’s border policies.

During Trump’s legal fights, Hellerstein rejected a bid to move the Manhattan hush-money case into federal court. He later denied a post-conviction transfer request after the Supreme Court weighed in on presidential immunity. Those decisions are still a sore point for many conservatives who saw the Manhattan prosecution as politically charged.

Hellerstein also intervened in deportation matters tied to the administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act. In 2025 he issued orders that blocked specific deportations and later granted a preliminary injunction, concluding the Act had not been “validly invoked” in his district and criticizing how notices and transfers were handled. He called some detention conditions “notoriously evil.” That intervention halted removals in New York and drew sharp rebukes from immigration hardliners.

Now, with the Maduro case landed in New York, critics ask why. Why assign a nonagenarian with this record to such a high-stakes, politically charged prosecution? Why not a venue closer to where Venezuela-linked operations are alleged to have moved men and money, like Miami?

Those questions aren’t just rhetorical. They cut to process, fairness, and optics. New York is already the courtroom where numerous cases involving high-profile political figures—especially those tied to former President Trump—played out. Assigning another headline-making global case to that district fuels claims of forum-shopping and of a justice system that looks and feels partisan to many.

Reactions were swift. Some on the right said the choice smells of politics. Others pointed to Hellerstein’s age and long senior status as reasons to worry about continuity, promptness, and courtroom management in a sprawling international prosecution.

Former national-security adviser General Michael Flynn commented on the development: “So much for the SDNY…jurors will be picked from those protestors in time square.”

Voices in conservative circles also questioned why the case wasn’t brought in Miami, closer to Venezuela-connected networks and the Latin American diaspora. Roger Stone echoed that line of questioning publicly.

The assignment will now play out in courtrooms and headlines. Defense teams, prosecutors, and the public will watch how Hellerstein manages pretrial conflicts, evidentiary fights, and venue-related motions. Expect legal challenges and fast media attention.

Whatever one thinks of the man or his past rulings, this is a high-stakes benching. It raises hard questions about venue choice, judicial selection, and how trust in the system is maintained when politics and law collide.

Send this to a friend