What appeals have prosecutors filed after judges dismissed charges against Trump and what were outcomes?
Executive summary
Prosecutors appealed or sought review in multiple post-dismissal or post-conviction moments involving Trump: Fulton County’s Georgia case was dismissed after a newly assigned prosecutor declined to pursue charges (reported dismissal Nov. 26, 2025) after Fani Willis was disqualified on appeal in Dec. 2024 [1]. Separately, after Trump’s 2024 New York hush‑money conviction and later unconditional discharge, federal appeals courts have given him new opportunities to seek erasure of that conviction by ordering further review about whether presidential-immunity questions require federal jurisdiction [2] [3]. Other post‑dismissal or post‑trial appeals and sanctions litigation continue in federal courts, including an 11th Circuit ruling upholding nearly $1 million in sanctions against Trump for a dismissed Clinton‑related civil suit [4] [5].
1. Georgia racketeering case: dismissal after prosecutor decline — what happened and what was appealed
The Fulton County racketeering indictment was effectively ended when the prosecutor who took over after Fani Willis’s removal—Pete Skandalakis—declined to pursue the charges, and Judge Scott McAfee issued a brief order dismissing the case on Nov. 26, 2025 [1]. That dismissal came after the Georgia Court of Appeals had removed Willis from the case in December 2024 and the Georgia Supreme Court declined to hear her appeal; the appeals‑court fight over Willis’s disqualification was the pivotal procedural dispute that preceded the eventual change in prosecutorial posture [3] [1].
2. New York hush‑money conviction: appeals that seek to erase or move the case to federal court
Trump’s 2024 New York hush‑money conviction, despite an unconditional discharge at sentencing in January 2025, remains subject to appellate maneuvering. A federal appeals panel ordered a lower federal judge to reconsider whether the case should be moved into federal court because the Supreme Court’s 2024 immunity decision could amount to a “change in controlling law” and because a closer look is required at whether evidence admitted at trial relates to official acts that might trigger immunity or evidentiary protections [2] [6]. The appeals court explicitly directed that the district judge reevaluate those federal‑jurisdiction and immunity questions—an outcome that gives Trump “another shot” at erasing the conviction rather than an immediate reversal [2] [6].
3. Civil and collateral appeals: sanctions and dismissed litigations still produce rulings
Even where criminal charges have been dismissed or convictions discharged, judges and appellate panels have continued to resolve related civil and sanction matters against Trump. For example, a conservative federal appeals court unanimously upheld nearly $1 million in sanctions against Trump and his former lawyer Alina Habba for a “frivolous” lawsuit targeting Hillary Clinton, James Comey and others, leaving the penalty in place despite the underlying suit having been dismissed [4] [5]. That appeals outcome shows that dismissal of a case does not end all legal consequences and that prosecutors, defendants and courts continue to litigate collateral questions on appeal [5].
4. Outcomes so far: summary and what remains unresolved
Immediate outcomes are mixed: the Georgia criminal prosecution was dismissed after the new prosecutor declined to proceed [1]; the New York conviction was not yet erased but the 2nd Circuit ordered further review that could reopen a path to vacatur on immunity grounds [2] [6]; civil sanctions were upheld on appeal in the 11th Circuit [4] [5]. Available sources do not mention any successful appeals by prosecutors that reinstated dismissed state charges against Trump after the Georgia dismissal [1]. The hush‑money matter remains in legal motion—appellate instruction to reconsider does not equal reversal, but it does materially extend the litigation [2].
5. Competing perspectives and implicit agendas in reporting
Court decisions and appeals reflect different legal frames: prosecutors and some state courts treated Willis’s conduct and procedural errors as disqualifying, producing a chain that ended the Georgia case [3] [1]. Trump’s legal team frames appellate victories or orders for reconsideration as vindication of presidential immunity claims; opponents and victims’ advocates frame dismissals as procedural outcomes that do not speak to underlying facts [2] [1]. Media outlets and courts with different institutional perspectives highlight either procedural protections for defendants or the practical consequence of unprosecuted allegations; readers should note that appellate rulings often rest on narrow jurisdictional or evidentiary grounds rather than verdicts on guilt or innocence [2] [1].
Limitations: this summary uses only the provided reporting; available sources do not mention some granular filings or all interlocutory appeals in each case and therefore do not allow a complete docket‑level accounting beyond the cited developments [2] [1] [5].