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: What are the current court cases against Trump?
Executive Summary
Donald Trump faces a mix of resolved and ongoing criminal matters across state and federal courts: a New York conviction on 34 counts of falsifying business records that resulted in an unconditional discharge and remains on appeal; federal cases in Florida and the District of Columbia that were dismissed without prejudice after actions by special counsel and judges; and a Georgia state prosecution tied to the 2020 election that has been paused by procedural rulings, including the disqualification of the Fulton County prosecutor. Recent appellate activity has given Trump additional routes to challenge the New York conviction under the Supreme Court’s immunity framework [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. The New York “Hush Money” Case — Convicted, Sentenced to Discharge, Now an appeals battleground
The Manhattan prosecution produced a conviction on 34 counts of falsifying business records, with sentencing ultimately resulting in an unconditional discharge on January 10, 2025, and Trump filing appeals to overturn the verdict and judgment [1] [2]. Appellate courts in November 2025 ordered lower courts to reconsider motions about moving the case to federal court to assess whether evidence relates to presidential immunity under the Supreme Court’s decision, effectively giving Trump another procedural avenue to seek vacatur of the state conviction [3] [4]. Prosecutors counter that federal review is untimely because the state trial concluded with conviction and sentence, creating a legal tug-of-war over timing and jurisdiction that will shape whether the conviction stands or is re-litigated in federal court [4].
2. Federal Documents Case in Florida — Dismissed, Appeal and winding down followed
A Florida federal indictment tied to alleged retention and concealment of classified documents produced detailed superseding charges, including counts under 18 U.S.C. § 793(e) and obstruction-related allegations, with co-defendants listed and potential major penalties described in filings [5]. Judicial rulings in mid-2024 found procedural defects related to the appointment of the special counsel, leading to dismissal without prejudice in July 2024, and the Office of Special Counsel later chose to wind down further pursuit following the 2024 election outcome, leaving the case in a paused or closed posture rather than resolved on the merits [2] [5]. The documentary record shows extensive filings and unresolved motions through early 2025, so the status remains legally dormant rather than finally adjudicated [6].
3. The D.C. Election Subversion Case — Immunity questions and dismissals reshaped the docket
The federal case in the District of Columbia, filed in August 2023 over efforts to overturn the 2020 election, was paused while the Supreme Court considered presidential immunity and was ultimately dismissed without prejudice in November 2024 by a district judge; the immunity ruling narrowed but did not create blanket protection for all presidential acts [2]. That dismissal, paired with the later prosecutorial decisions described above, reflects a judicial and prosecutorial recalibration: courts parsed official versus unofficial acts, and judges applied the Supreme Court’s framework to limit which charges could proceed, leaving the D.C. matter effectively paused or dismissible but not precluding future refiling [2]. The practical effect is that D.C. litigation is unresolved on the merits and remains contingent on procedural and jurisdictional rulings.
4. Georgia State Case — Ongoing but disrupted by prosecutorial disqualification
The Fulton County indictment charging Trump and co-defendants over Georgia 2020 election efforts remains open and characteristically state-driven, insulated from a federal presidential pardon but affected by state-court procedural controversies, most notably the Georgia Court of Appeals’ disqualification of District Attorney Fani Willis on December 19, 2024 [2]. Some charges have been struck at various stages for specificity or constitutional reasons, and the case was paused while appellate courts considered Willis’s disqualification and related motions, creating uncertainty about when or whether a renewed state prosecution will proceed or be reassigned [1] [2]. The Georgia matter persists as the principal active state-level check on alleged election-related misconduct but is in flux pending reassignment and further motions.
5. What the landscape means legally and procedurally — Multiple open doors, different remedies
Across these matters, the legal landscape shows distinct remedies and limits: New York’s state conviction can be appealed and potentially routed into federal court under immunity theories; federal cases were dismissed on procedural grounds and may be refiled if constitutional defects are cured; Georgia remains in state court where federal pardon power does not reach [3] [2]. The multiplicity of forums produces divergent timelines, legal standards, and tactical opportunities—defense teams press immunity and jurisdictional arguments while prosecutors emphasize timeliness and the finality of convictions—so outcomes will depend as much on appellate jurists and procedural posture as on underlying facts [4] [6].
6. Bottom line for observers — Ongoing uncertainty with clear fault lines to watch
As of the latest documented updates through November 6, 2025, no single case has produced final, unappealable closure across all matters: New York’s conviction stands but is on appeal; federal matters were dismissed without prejudice and largely wound down; Georgia remains active but disrupted [1] [2]. The key developments to monitor are appellate rulings about presidential immunity’s scope, lower-court reconsideration of federal removal or intervention in the New York case, and the Georgia courts’ handling of prosecutor disqualification and potential reassignment—each decision will materially alter the prosecutorial landscape and the practical legal exposure facing Trump [3] [4] [2].