Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: Which court dismissed the felony charges against Trump and why?
Executive Summary
Special Counsel Jack Smith moved to dismiss federal felony charges related to the 2020 election against Donald Trump, and U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan formally entered dismissal after the Justice Department relied on its longstanding policy that a sitting president cannot be criminally charged; the filings and orders thus ended that particular federal prosecution [1] [2] [3]. Other courts and cases have produced different outcomes: a Georgia state judge dismissed specific counts in a state election case, and a New York judge rejected an attempt by Trump to vacate his hush‑money conviction, underscoring different courts reached different results for distinct charges [4] [5].
1. What the public claims boil down to — the central factual assertions to track
Sources present three central claims: that Special Counsel Jack Smith requested dismissal of federal election‑related charges against Trump citing DOJ policy barring indictment of a sitting president; that U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan entered the dismissal after that request; and that separate prosecutions in Georgia and New York produced mixed rulings, with dismissed counts in Georgia and an upheld conviction in New York. Each of these claims appears across the provided reporting and legal filings, and together they assert dismissal in federal court tied to DOJ policy, but continued litigation and divergent rulings in state courts [1] [2] [4] [5] [3].
2. Which court actually dismissed the charges — parsing the actors and the orders
The dismissal of the federal election‑subversion indictment occurred in U.S. District Court and is recorded as the court action effectuated after Special Counsel Smith’s motion to dismiss; Judge Tanya Chutkan granted that motion and entered the dismissal, making the court of record the U.S. District Court before Judge Chutkan [2] [3]. Reporting describes Smith as the moving prosecutor and Chutkan as the judge who signed the order, establishing that the dismissal was a federal district court order based on a prosecutorial filing, not a unilateral prosecutorial decision without court entry [1] [3].
3. Why prosecutors cited DOJ policy — the legal justification offered
The stated justification for dismissal in the federal matter was the Justice Department’s longstanding policy that a sitting president cannot be criminally prosecuted, which Special Counsel Smith invoked when asking the court to dismiss; reporting explicitly ties Smith’s filing to that DOJ position as the operative legal rationale for discontinuing the indictment while the defendant held or held the presidency [1]. That rationale frames the dismissal as rooted in Department policy rather than a court finding on the underlying merits of alleged conduct, according to the summaries provided [1].
4. How state courts diverged — Georgia and New York produced different results
Parallel state prosecutions followed separate tracks: a Georgia judge dismissed six counts in a state election‑interference case affecting Trump and co‑defendants, with three counts specifically applying to Trump related to alleged solicitations of public officials to violate oaths, while in New York a judge rejected Trump’s bid to dismiss his hush‑money conviction, preserving a 34‑count felony verdict tied to alleged unofficial conduct. These state decisions show different legal thresholds and outcomes across jurisdictions and underscore that dismissal in one federal case did not automatically resolve state charges [4] [5].
5. Timeline clarity — when the dismissals and rulings occurred in reporting
The sequence in the provided material places the Smith motion and federal dismissal filings in late 2024 and November 2024 for the district court action, while the Georgia dismissal reporting references March 2024 timing for the judge’s rulings; the New York denial to dismiss the conviction appears in mid‑December 2024. These dates indicate overlapping litigation across jurisdictions during 2024, with federal dismissal actions and state rulings occurring at different points in the calendar as cases proceeded independently [2] [4] [5] [1].
6. What the available analyses leave out — legal nuance and appellate prospects
The provided summaries do not include full judicial opinions explaining whether the federal dismissal was without prejudice, whether the DOJ policy rationale was litigated on the merits by the court, or the appellate posture of the various cases. They also omit detailed statutory and constitutional analyses about presidential immunity versus Department policy and do not show whether prosecutors preserved the right to refile after a presidency. Thus, key procedural and appellate questions remain open in the record supplied [1] [3].
7. Assessing the reporting and potential agendas in the sources
The snippets present consistent factual assertions about the federal dismissal tied to DOJ policy and Judge Chutkan’s order, while state outcomes differ; sources include Special Counsel filings and court orders as described, but the summaries do not provide full court texts or opposing legal arguments. Readers should note that invoking DOJ policy is a prosecutorial rationale that may reflect institutional concerns about separation of powers, and that differing state rulings reflect distinct legal standards and jurisdictional imperatives not resolved by the federal dismissal alone [1] [2] [4] [5].