Which judges and court locations are handling each of Trump's ongoing cases and what are their next scheduled milestones?

1. The New York “hush money” / state criminal conviction story — appeals and venue fights

The sources show the New York hush‑money matter remains active in appellate litigation: a federal appeals court (Second Circuit) ordered a lower court to reconsider a bid to move the New York state case to federal court so the defendant can argue presidential immunity — naming judges on the panel (Susan L. Carney, Raymond J. Lohier Jr., Myrna Pérez) in coverage — and directing renewed consideration of U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein’s prior denials to remove the case ^[3]. Those reports indicate appellate review of venue/immunity questions is the immediate milestone; however, the specific next briefing deadlines or oral argument dates are not given in the available sources (not found in current reporting) ^[3].

2. Federal cases tied to January 6 / special‑counsel matters — status shaped by Supreme Court and DOJ choices

Reporting describes earlier federal prosecutions overseen by Special Counsel Jack Smith that were paused, dropped, or otherwise affected after Trump’s 2024 election and subsequent legal developments ^{[5] [4]}. The Supreme Court’s rulings and DOJ decisions (for example, the decision by Smith to drop certain charges when Trump regained office) have shaped whether particular federal judges were going to preside or whether cases proceeded ^{[5] [4]}. The sources do not list a current roster of assigned trial judges or precise upcoming dates for the federal election‑interference or documents investigations — those specifics are not found in current reporting (not found in current reporting) ^{[5] [4]}.

3. Fulton County, Georgia racketeering/election case — prosecutor changes, court deadlines

For the Georgia election‑interference prosecution, The Guardian reports that Fulton County’s case was in limbo after the district attorney Fani Willis was disqualified; the Georgia prosecutor’s council appointment and judges’ interactions (including a Fulton County judge setting deadlines) are highlighted, and the story notes the case had been on “life support” with a November 14 deadline previously set to find a new prosecutor ^[2]. The reporting indicates state‑court procedural milestones (appointments and conflicts deadlines) drove the near‑term schedule, but a definitive next court date for the defendants or a currently assigned Fulton County trial judge is not provided in these sources (not found in current reporting) ^[2].

4. Federal dismissals tied to appointment issues — Eastern District of Virginia example

Multiple outlets reported a federal judge tossed criminal charges brought by an interim U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia because the prosecutor lacked lawful appointment authority; The Guardian and the New York Times cite Judge Cameron McGowan Currie’s dismissal of the Comey and Letitia James indictments “without prejudice” and note uncertainty about re‑filing because of statute‑of‑limitations concerns ^{[6] [7] [8]}. The immediate milestone described is the administration’s stated intention to appeal dismissals and the court’s control over any interim U.S. attorney appointment — but the sources do not set out the next hearing dates or the specific appeals court docket numbers (not found in current reporting) ^{[6] [7] [8]}.

5. Civil and administrative litigation involving the administration — trackers and disparate venues

Longer trackers (Lawfare, Just Security, The Fulcrum) and Reuters reporting show a broad docket of litigation challenging Trump administration actions — immigration rules, deportation policies, tariffs, and more — across district and appellate courts ^{[9] [10] [11] [12]}. These trackers are designed to follow many separate cases and list statuses, but the snapshot sources here summarize the litigation landscape rather than enumerate judge assignments and calendar items for every case; the specific judge names and next scheduled milestones for each listed action are not set out in these excerpts (not found in current reporting) ^{[9] [10] [11] [12]}.

6. What the sources allow us to conclude — and where they leave gaps

From the available reporting we can confidently say: (a) the Second Circuit has intervened in the New York venue/immunity dispute (judges named in coverage) ^[3]; (b) a federal judge in EDVA dismissed certain indictments due to appointment defects, and that dismissal was labeled “without prejudice,” with appeals or refiling signaled by the administration ^{[6] [7] [8]}; and (c) the Georgia racketeering/election case’s timeline has been driven by prosecutorial conflicts and court‑set deadlines ^[2]. However, the sources do not provide a complete list matching every ongoing case to its assigned judge, courthouse location, and firm next calendar milestone — those granular docket details are not found in the materials you supplied (not found in current reporting) ^{[13] [9] [10]}.

If you want, I can: (A) compile a targeted docket list using current public PACER/state court dockets and report back with judge names, courthouses, and upcoming dates; or (B) track a short list of specific cases (for example: New York state hush‑money appeal, Fulton County RICO matter, EDVA appointment‑based dismissals) and return exact next‑date milestones drawn directly from court filings and calendars.