Have any federal judges dismissed charges against Trump and what were their legal reasons?

1. Federal dismissals tied to prosecutors’ strategic decisions: Chutkan and Smith

The special counsel Jack Smith asked to dismiss his federal election-obstruction prosecution in late November 2024, and Judge Tanya Chutkan granted that request on November 25, 2024 — a dismissal tied to prosecutorial strategy after parallel litigation and the 2024 election outcome rather than a merits-based judicial exoneration by trial ^{[1] [7]}. Reporting and trackers note Smith “moved to dismiss the case without prejudice,” and courts treated the filings as a procedural grant of the prosecution’s request ^{[8] [1]}.

2. Appointments and the Appointments Clause: Currie tosses Comey and James indictments

A different legal rationale drove a separate set of dismissals: U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie threw out indictments brought by a Trump-selected prosecutor, finding that her appointment violated statutory and constitutional appointment rules and therefore that she “had no legal authority” to bring the cases ^{[3] [2]}. Currie dismissed charges against former FBI director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James “without prejudice,” signaling the Department of Justice could seek new indictments under a properly appointed prosecutor ^{[3] [9]}.

3. State prosecution dropped, judge ordered Georgia case dismissed

In Georgia, the state prosecutor who replaced Fani Willis moved to drop the RICO-based election-interference indictment against Trump and co-defendants; Fulton County Judge Scott McAfee signed an order dismissing the case “in its entirety,” a development reporters described as ending the last of four criminal matters that had shadowed Trump’s post-2020 politics ^{[5] [4] [6]}. Coverage frames this as a combination of prosecutorial decision-making and judicial action rather than a fact-finding acquittal at trial ^{[5] [6]}.

4. Why judges dismissed — two distinct legal pathways

The available reports show two distinct legal bases. One pathway is prosecutorial withdrawal: Smith’s office voluntarily sought dismissal after strategic review and external litigation developments, which Chutkan approved ^{[1] [7]}. The other is judicial invalidation of prosecutions due to defective appointment procedures: Currie found the Trump-appointed U.S. attorney lacked lawful authority, nullifying indictments that she filed ^{[3] [2]}. Each produces the same immediate outcome — charges dropped — but carries different implications for retrial and for institutional norms ^{[3] [1]}.

5. Consequences and avenues left open

When dismissals are “without prejudice” — as in Currie’s ruling on the Comey and James indictments and as reported in some federal filings — the government can refile charges under a lawfully appointed prosecutor; when prosecutors voluntarily drop cases tied to political events or election outcomes, the government often asserts practical or policy reasons for not proceeding immediately ^{[3] [1]}. In the Georgia RICO matter, the state’s dismissal under a successor prosecutor and the judge’s order appear to have closed that particular state prosecution at least for now ^{[5] [6]}.

6. Competing narratives and broader context

Supporters of dismissal frame these steps as vindication against politically motivated prosecutions or as prudent use of prosecutorial discretion; critics warn that dismissals driven by appointment technicalities or prosecutorial choices can undermine accountability and be perceived as politically driven. Coverage in Reuters, the New York Times, PBS, Axios and others highlights both constitutional and practical rationales and notes the DOJ and courts remain avenues for renewed actions depending on how prosecutors choose to proceed ^{[3] [2] [6] [9] [1]}.

Limitations: available sources do not mention every judicial opinion’s full text or every legal brief filed in these matters; I rely on news summaries and trackers provided above for the factual assertions ^{[2] [1] [3]}.