Which Trump criminal cases have been dismissed or dropped and why?
Executive summary
Three of the four major criminal prosecutions tied to Donald Trump were dismissed or dropped after his 2024 re‑election, including two federal cases that Jack Smith (special counsel) asked to dismiss and the Fulton County, Georgia racketeering case that a state prosecutor moved to drop; the federal dismissals were justified by Department of Justice policy barring prosecution of a sitting president and the Georgia dismissal was tied to prosecutorial disqualifications, timing and a new prosecutor’s decision that pursuing the case would not “serve the interests of justice” [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. Reporting shows at least one state case — the New York business‑records prosecution — resulted in a conviction that Trump has sought to vacate but was sentenced to an unconditional discharge in January 2025 [2].
1. The federal cases: dropped because a sitting president cannot be prosecuted (procedural, not merits)
Special counsel Jack Smith asked courts to dismiss the federal indictments after Trump’s 2024 re‑election, citing DOJ policy that the Department will not prosecute a sitting president; filings and public comments framed those dismissals as procedural, not a judgment on evidentiary strength — Smith’s team said evidence could have sustained convictions but the cases were paused or dropped “without prejudice,” allowing potential refiling after a presidency ends [1] [2] [6].
2. Georgia racketeering indictment: dismissed amid prosecutorial turmoil and timing pressures
The sprawling Fulton County RICO prosecution alleging a scheme to overturn Georgia’s 2020 result was dismissed in November 2025 after Fulton prosecutors were disqualified and the state’s prosecuting attorneys’ council chief, Pete Skandalakis, took the matter and moved to dismiss; judges and reporting cited Willis’s earlier removal, appearance‑of‑conflict issues, and Skandalakis’s conclusion that pursuing the case would not serve the interests of justice as pivotal [7] [5] [8] [4].
3. What “without prejudice” and “dismissal” mean here — preservation of later options
Several dismissals were entered “without prejudice,” a legal term reporters cite meaning charges can be refiled after immunity no longer applies — that was explicitly noted in the federal filings and media summaries of Smith’s requests to drop cases; thus dismissals reflected immediate legal and constitutional constraints, not necessarily final judgments on guilt or innocence [1] [2].
4. The New York state case: conviction, post‑conviction motions and an unconditional discharge
The New York hush‑money case proceeded to trial, produced a conviction for falsifying business records, and later developments included defense motions seeking to vacate the verdict and, per reporting, an unconditional discharge sentenced in January 2025 — meaning no prison, probation or fines were imposed at that time [2]. Available sources do not mention whether that conviction remains fully resolved on appeal beyond what the cited reporting states.
5. How courts and commentators framed the dismissals — rule of law vs. political reality
International and U.S. legal commentators quoted in reporting framed the outcomes as a stress test for rule of law: some argued the electorate’s choice and the Supreme Court’s immunity decision had practical effects that insulated a sitting president from criminal processes, while others underscored that procedural rulings (appointments, disqualifications, timing) — not the absence of evidence — produced the closures [9] [2] [10].
6. Competing viewpoints in the coverage
Prosecutors and independent reviewers (like Smith’s report) said admissible evidence could have sustained convictions had prosecutions proceeded; defense teams and Trump allies called the cases politically motivated and pointed to disqualified prosecutors, conflicts, and immunity rulings as vindication. Some outlets emphasized that timing — a president’s return to office and the resulting immunity — was decisive; others highlighted ethics problems that undermined particular prosecutions [1] [6] [5] [7].
7. Limits of current reporting and what remains unsettled
Available sources do not mention detailed, final appellate resolutions for all dismissed matters; they do show that dismissals often left open the ability to refile after Trump left office and that constitutional questions (presidential immunity, appointment legality) could reach higher courts. The public record in these sources also leaves open downstream civil remedies and the status of co‑defendants’ pleas or penalties in some related matters [1] [11] [7].
Bottom line: dismissals and drops in these high‑profile matters were driven primarily by procedural barriers — presidential immunity, prosecutorial disqualification, timing and strategic prosecutorial judgments — rather than a uniform judicial finding that the allegations lacked evidentiary support; multiple sources stress that the underlying evidence and legal questions remain contested [1] [2] [3] [11].