Which charges in Trump’s criminal cases were dismissed or reversed by appellate courts?
Executive summary
An array of state and federal appellate rulings, and a handful of trial-court dismissals later reviewed by higher courts, have erased or narrowed some legal threats to Donald Trump while leaving others intact or open to further appeal; notably, New York appellate judges threw out the vast civil monetary penalty in the state’s fraud case, and federal prosecutions brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith ran aground after a Trump-appointed judge dismissed them—decisions that triggered ongoing appeals [1] [2] [3]. This survey sets out which charges or penalties were dismissed or reversed by appellate courts, and where the record in the provided reporting stops.
1. New York Appellate Division: the huge civil penalty wiped out but fraud finding largely left standing
A mid‑level New York Appellate Division panel overturned the nine‑figure monetary penalty that Judge Engoron had imposed in the state civil fraud suit, effectively throwing out the roughly $465–$515 million sanction while leaving intact a narrower finding that Trump had engaged in fraudulent overstatements on financial statements and preserving the possibility of further appeals to New York’s highest court [1] [4] [5]. Reporting is explicit that the panel “dismissed the penalty Engoron imposed in its entirety” and granted a pathway to the state Court of Appeals for more review, but the appellate opinion did not absolve the underlying fraud determinations entirely [1] [5].
2. Federal criminal prosecutions: judge’s dismissal and appellate reversal of pretrial orders, then continued litigation
In the classified‑documents and election‑related federal prosecutions overseen by Special Counsel Jack Smith, a Trump‑appointed district judge (Aileen Cannon) dismissed charges on separable procedural grounds tied to Smith’s appointment, producing a dismissal that prosecutors appealed; appellate courts—most importantly the 11th U.S. Circuit—had already reversed some of Cannon’s earlier pretrial orders (such as the special‑master appointment and jurisdictional detours), and the interplay between dismissals and appeals left the federal criminal matters in limbo rather than finally resolved by an appellate court in the sources provided [2] [6] [3]. Reporting states the dismissal and that appeals were pending before the 11th Circuit, which had previously reversed Cannon’s handling of certain pretrial rulings [2] [6].
3. Georgia racketeering indictment: trial judge dismissed the case, not an appellate court
Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee ordered the state election‑interference racketeering case dismissed “in its entirety,” ending the last county criminal case against Trump at the trial level in that reporting; that dismissal was a trial‑court action rather than an appellate reversal, and press accounts emphasize the judge’s view that the citizens of Georgia were not served by prolonging the prosecution [7]. The reporting notes the original indictment included RICO‑style charges among 13 counts but frames McAfee’s decision as a trial‑court disposition with political and prosecutorial controversies surrounding the case [7].
4. Hush‑money conviction and state appellate review: appeal pending, not yet reversed by an appellate court in these reports
Trump’s 34‑count New York state conviction for falsifying business records in the Stormy Daniels hush‑money matter was the subject of appellate filings and hearings, and some appellate panels have granted procedural avenues to contest the verdict, but the sources do not report a final appellate reversal of that conviction; instead, they show ongoing appeals and the possibility of state appellate review while noting defenses grounded in presidential‑immunity arguments and timing issues about removal to federal court [8] [9]. The reporting documents appeals being filed and argued but does not claim the conviction was overturned [8] [9].
5. What the selective wins and reversals tell about the legal landscape and motives in reporting
The pattern in the sources is mixed: state appellate judges pared back financial penalties in civil litigation (a result that benefits Trump’s business interests) while federal dismissals by a Trump‑appointed judge invited appellate correction—an outcome that has sometimes favored prosecutors when higher courts reversed pretrial detours but has also resulted in procedural victories for Trump that prosecutors continue to contest [1] [2] [6]. Media frames and partisan actors emphasize different takeaways—prosecutors and their supporters see reversals of judge‑level delays as corrective, while Trump allies portray dismissals and the slashing of penalties as vindication—so assessing “dismissed or reversed” requires separating trial‑court rulings from final appellate determinations and recognizing the ongoing appeals the reporting identifies [1] [2] [6] [7].