Which Trump felony counts were overturned and what were the court's reasons?
Executive summary
Judicial rulings since 2024 altered parts of two major sets of criminal charges involving Donald Trump: New York state judges and the federal/Georgia dockets produced different outcomes. New York’s 34-count falsified‑business‑records conviction proceeded to sentencing in January 2025 but has been the subject of appeals over whether presidential‑act evidence requires federal review [1] [2]; in Georgia a judge struck or dismissed several counts at different times (three counts struck March 2024, two struck September 2024) and the remaining racketeering indictment was ultimately dismissed in November 2025 after prosecutorial change and a decision the case could not realistically proceed against a sitting president [3] [4] [5].
1. What was overturned or struck in Georgia’s indictment — a patchwork of rulings
Fulton County’s broad RICO indictment against Trump originally contained 13 counts; Judge Scott McAfee struck three counts for lack of specificity in March 2024 and struck an additional two counts in September 2024 on Supremacy Clause grounds, narrowing the case before later dismissal of the remaining counts in November 2025 when the new prosecutor moved to drop the indictment, saying there was “no realistic prospect” a sitting president would be compelled to appear for trial [3] [4] [5].
2. Why those Georgia counts were struck — specificity and constitutional immunity arguments
The March 2024 rulings removed counts the judge found legally deficient for failing to allege sufficient detail — a classical “lack of specificity” dismissal that limits prosecutorial theory [3]. The September 2024 strikes invoked Supremacy Clause issues tied to alleged conduct overlapping with official acts, meaning the court found parts of the indictment implicated federal‑executive functions and raised constitutional concerns about state prosecution of presidential actions [3] [4].
3. Why the rest of the Georgia case ended — prosecutorial change and practicality
After Fani Willis was disqualified from the case in December 2024 and the special prosecutor Peter Skandalakis assumed control, Skandalakis moved to dismiss the entire remaining indictment in November 2025, arguing pragmatic impossibility of compelling a sitting president’s participation in a state criminal trial and effectively ending the Georgia prosecution [5] [3].
4. New York’s 34 counts — conviction, sentencing, and ongoing appellate strategy
In Manhattan, Trump was convicted on 34 counts of falsifying business records in May 2024; he was sentenced with an unconditional discharge on January 10, 2025, and his team has actively pursued appellate routes, including an argument to transfer review from state to federal courts on the theory that evidence used at trial concerned his official acts and thus implicates federal immunity doctrines [1] [2].
5. The legal theory aiming to overturn New York counts — federal review and immunity
Defense appeals in New York have focused on the Supreme Court’s later immunities decisions and whether testimony or evidence that touched on presidential communications or actions should have been litigated in federal court; federal judges on the 2nd Circuit signaled willingness to consider moving the appeal into the federal system because of “weighty” federal interests that could lead to dismissal if the conviction rests on evidence tied to official acts [2].
6. Conflicting viewpoints and the political overlay
Sources present competing rationales: prosecutors and many democratic observers frame the strikes and dismissals as technical or procedural outcomes that do not negate underlying allegations [4] [5], while proponents of Trump portray the rulings and dismissals as vindication and consequences of constitutional protections for a president [3] [2]. Reporting also documents institutional disruptions — disqualifications, prosecutorial substitutions and later decisions by prosecutors to drop cases — which critics say reflect political and procedural fragility in high‑stakes prosecutions [4] [3].
7. What the available reporting does not say
Available sources do not mention any single unified judicial ruling that “overturned” every felony conviction against Trump; rather, they describe discrete strikes of particular counts, a New York conviction that proceeded to sentencing and appeals, and a Georgia indictment that was narrowed then dismissed after prosecutorial changes [1] [3] [4]. Sources do not provide a final Supreme Court decision reversing the Manhattan conviction as of these reports [2] [6].
8. Bottom line for readers
The transformations in Trump’s criminal exposure came through a mixture of count‑specific legal rulings (lack of specificity; Supremacy Clause concerns), prosecutorial decisions, and appellate strategies invoking presidential immunity — not a single sweeping judicial erasure of all felony counts; the most consequential recent outcome was the November 2025 dismissal in Georgia and active appeals in New York that seek federal review on immunity grounds [3] [5] [2].