Which federal judges have dismissed charges against Donald Trump and in which cases?

1. Georgia’s racketeering case ends after prosecutor abandons charges

Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee signed an order dismissing the sprawling Georgia racketeering indictment tied to Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 result after Pete Skandalakis, the special prosecutor appointed after Fani Willis was removed, filed a motion to drop the case “to serve the interests of justice and promote judicial finality,” effectively ending the last criminal prosecution that remained unresolved after Trump’s return to the White House ^{[1] [2] [6]}.

2. Federal judge tosses Comey and James indictments over unlawful appointment

A federal judge — identified in reports as Senior U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie — dismissed criminal charges against former FBI director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, finding the prosecutor who brought those indictments had been unlawfully installed; the rulings were framed as a legal rebuke to the administration’s fast‑tracked prosecutions ^{[3] [4] [5]}.

3. What the dismissals mean legally and procedurally

Court orders in these instances varied: the Georgia dismissal followed a nolle prosequi-style motion by a state prosecutor and a one‑page order by Judge McAfee, while the Comey and James dismissals rested on the lawful appointment of the federal prosecutor and were described in reporting as “without prejudice,” meaning the government could potentially try again under some circumstances ^{[1] [7] [4]}. Reuters and the New York Times coverage note statutory and procedural complexities — including potential refile windows and appointment authority — that could affect whether charges return ^{[5] [7]}.

4. Political context and competing narratives

News outlets present competing frames: some coverage emphasizes that dismissals represent a decisive legal defeat for prosecutions initiated by or favored by the Trump administration ^{[3] [5]}, while state reporting underscores prosecutorial discretion and practical trial difficulties cited by the special prosecutor in Georgia ^{[6] [2]}. The White House and allies have characterized the dismissals as vindication; prosecutors and legal critics call the federal dismissals a check on politically motivated use of prosecutorial power ^{[3] [4]}.

5. Where reporting diverges and what remains unreported

Sources uniformly report the McAfee Georgia order and Currie federal rulings, but they differ on emphasis: some note specific dismissed counts in Georgia (Newsweek cites certain counts dropped) while broader outlets stress the end of the “final” case against Trump ^{[8] [1]}. Available sources do not mention whether any judge other than McAfee or Currie has dismissed charges against Trump personally in other named cases; reporting instead documents related federal dismissals affecting Trump‑aligned prosecutions of others ^{[1] [3]}.

6. Wider implications for the justice system and politics

Commentators quoted in the coverage interpret these rulings as symptomatic of a larger clash between courts and a politically driven prosecutorial agenda: retired judges and legal observers warn about erosion of norms when appointments or shortcuts are used, while administration supporters argue the courts corrected overreach ^{[9] [5]}. The dismissals have immediate political impact — removing the last criminal cloud over Trump’s presidency and prompting talk of appeals and potential refiling — but reporters caution legal avenues and statutory windows still matter for any renewed charges ^{[1] [7] [4]}.

Limitations: this summary uses only the provided contemporary reporting and does not assert facts not covered there; for instance, detailed procedural papers, full texts of orders, or any later filings are not included in these sources (not found in current reporting).