A Georgia judge has formally dismissed the state’s election-interference case against President Donald Trump, ending the final unresolved criminal effort to hold him legally accountable for attempts to overturn his 2020 election loss. The decision closes a years-long chapter that once appeared poised to test the limits of presidential authority and state-level prosecutorial power.
The motion to dismiss was filed Wednesday by Pete Skandalakis, executive director of Georgia’s nonpartisan Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council. His request effectively dissolves the case brought by former Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, who had charged Trump and 18 allies with racketeering offenses connected to their pressure campaign targeting Georgia election officials.
The Georgia case was widely viewed as among the most consequential of the four prosecutions Trump faced before returning to the White House last November. Unlike federal charges, state convictions cannot be wiped away by a presidential pardon. But Skandalakis argued that pursuing a state trial was no longer feasible because of developments in presidential-immunity law and the practical realities of litigating a case of this scale.
He emphasized that challenging election outcomes is not inherently unlawful, noting that political actors routinely dispute or investigate irregularities. The core issue, he said, was whether Trump’s actions fell within the scope of official presidential duties—an area the U.S. Supreme Court reshaped last year when it issued a landmark ruling granting presidents absolute immunity for conduct tied directly to their constitutional responsibilities.
That ruling significantly complicated prosecutors’ efforts, because much of the alleged conduct—such as conversations with state officials—would require courts to parse which actions were personal, political, or official. Skandalakis warned that resolving those distinctions would likely demand years of litigation, pushing any trial well beyond the end of Trump’s current term. He noted that expecting a jury trial to begin close to the end of the decade, or even into the early 2030s, would not meaningfully serve Georgia residents.
The original indictment accused Trump, former personal attorney Rudolph W. Giuliani, former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, and others of orchestrating a coordinated plan to pressure state officials to change the outcome of the 2020 vote and assemble an alternate slate of electors. While several defendants had negotiated plea agreements before Trump’s reelection, the overall viability of the case had weakened amid constitutional challenges and shifting political realities.
Skandalakis also pointed to the parallel federal inquiry led by Special Counsel Jack Smith, which had pursued many of the same allegations on a national scale. That case was dismissed earlier this year after Trump returned to office. Skandalakis argued that if federal prosecutors—armed with expansive investigative resources—had ultimately concluded that further pursuit would be futile in light of the Supreme Court’s immunity decision and the delays inherent to such litigation, then Georgia was unlikely to achieve a different outcome.
In his view, continuing the state prosecution would consume years and substantial public resources while offering little prospect of a definitive legal resolution. With Wednesday’s filing, the last remaining election-interference case against Trump has come to an end, reinforcing the sweeping protective power of presidential immunity and marking a significant turning point in the post-2020 legal landscape.
%20(1)%20(1)%20(1)%20(1)%20(1)%20(1)%20(1)%20(1)%20(1).jpg)
%20(1)%20(1)%20(1).png)
