How have courts ruled on immunity, dismissal motions, and appeals in Trump’s felony cases so far?

1. The Supreme Court’s immunity line in the sand — “some immunity” for official acts

The Supreme Court’s July 1, 2024 decision held that a president has absolute immunity for core constitutional powers but not for unofficial conduct, a 6–3 ruling that split the issues and sent cases back to lower courts to apply that framework ^{[1] [4]}. That ruling became the pivot for subsequent litigation: prosecutors and defense teams had to reframe indictments and challenges about what evidence reflected “official” versus “personal” acts ^[4].

2. Immediate downstream: district judges applying the immunity decision

Lower courts reacted unevenly. In the New York hush‑money prosecution, Judge Juan Merchan concluded the Supreme Court decision did not nullify the conviction because the conduct was personal and any admission of official‑act evidence was harmless given what Merchan described as “overwhelming evidence of guilt” ^[5]. Other federal judges faced requests to remove state prosecutions to federal court so immunity could be adjudicated — and some appellate panels ordered reconsideration of those denials, finding lower courts failed to weigh all relevant factors ^[2].

3. Motions to dismiss: mixed results and tactical uses

Defense teams used the immunity ruling as a basis to file dismissal motions and to challenge admissibility of testimony about presidential acts; appeals briefs in the New York case argued the conviction must be set aside because the trial admitted evidence of official acts ^[3]. Meanwhile, prosecutors retooled indictments (for example, superseding where necessary) and in at least one federal matter Special Counsel Jack Smith wound down or dropped charges after Trump’s 2024 election victory on the ground of Department of Justice policy against prosecuting a sitting president ^{[4] [6]}. Available sources do not mention every motion-to-dismiss result across all jurisdictions; they show some dismissals, some denials, and some strategic withdrawals ^{[4] [6]}.

4. Appeals, remands and procedural detours

Appellate courts intervened in a number of ways. The Second Circuit directed a lower federal judge to reconsider denials of removal-to-federal-court requests in the hush‑money matter, signaling appellate concern that district courts had not considered important issues tied to presidential immunity ^[2]. In other venues, appeals courts have upheld sanctions or penalties unrelated to criminal immunity claims, illustrating that Trump’s litigation landscape spans both criminal and civil procedural contests ^{[7] [8]}.

5. Sentencing, convictions and later procedural outcomes

Reporting shows Trump was convicted in Manhattan on 34 counts of falsifying business records and faced sentencing that was delayed after his 2024 election; some sources report an unconditional discharge at sentencing on January 10, 2025, and others note prosecutors later moved to dismiss or wind down certain federal cases after the election ^{[5] [4] [6]}. Appeals from the defense seek to overturn convictions on immunity and evidentiary grounds — for example, an appeal arguing the conviction should be set aside because the jury heard testimony about official acts ^[3]. Different courts reached different procedural outcomes: convictions, stays or dismissals depending on timing, venue and how judges interpreted immunity ^{[5] [4] [2]}.

6. The Georgia case and other state prosecutions: disqualifications and eventual drop

State prosecutions also experienced upheaval. The Georgia case was paused while appellate courts considered disqualifying the prosecutor; the Georgia Court of Appeals disqualified Fani Willis, and after further procedural wrangling the state’s case was ultimately dropped by a new prosecutor in November 2025, ending what some outlets described as the last remaining criminal case ^{[1] [9]}. Available sources do not provide a granular ruling‑by‑ruling chronology for every local motion but report the disqualification and later abandonment of charges ^{[1] [9]}.

7. Competing narratives and implicit agendas in the court fight

Prosecutors framed their maneuvers as lawful efforts to hold a former president accountable and to adapt to a new immunity rule; defense teams framed litigation as political prosecution and attacked judges’ rulings and admissible evidence as beyond the immunity line ^{[3] [4]}. Appellate pushbacks — like remanding for reconsideration of removal requests — show courts trying to balance separation‑of‑powers concerns with ordinary criminal procedure ^[2]. Readers should note political stakes: court timing, election cycles and Department of Justice policies influenced prosecutorial choices, which can create perceptions of strategic or partisan motives on both sides ^{[6] [4]}.

8. Bottom line — fragmented outcomes, continuing appeals

The post‑Supreme Court landscape is fragmented: immunity is not absolute, lower courts must apply a new test, some prosecutions proceeded and produced convictions, some were paused or dismissed, and multiple appeals remain or were already filed challenging evidentiary rulings, removals to federal court, or the validity of prosecutions under the Court’s immunity guidance ^{[1] [4] [2] [3]}. Available sources document several major rulings and procedural shifts but do not exhaustively list every motion, ruling or appeal across all jurisdictions ^[4].