Donald Trump’s legal team has filed a motion with the Georgia Court of Appeals requesting the full dismissal of the charges against him in the state’s election interference case. This action, filed on December 4, 2024, calls for an inquiry into the court’s jurisdiction, claiming that the indictment and prosecution of Trump are unconstitutional. The motion argues that, as the President-Elect of the United States, Trump is immune from prosecution, whether at the state or federal level.
The motion, filed under an interlocutory appeal, challenges the constitutionality of Trump’s continued involvement in the case, citing his impending position as the 47th president of the United States. It asserts that the Supreme Court’s interpretation of executive branch immunity, combined with the principles of federalism, should prevent Georgia’s state prosecutors from pursuing charges against Trump while he is about to assume office.
Trump’s defense attorney, Steve Sadow, highlights that the U.S. Department of Justice has guidelines that prevent the indictment of a sitting president. He further emphasizes that the recent dismissal of federal cases against Trump in Washington D.C. and Florida by special counsel Jack Smith serves as a precedent for state-level legal proceedings. The motion suggests that Georgia’s prosecution of Trump is incompatible with the constitutional protections afforded to a president-elect.
The Georgia case in question is the ongoing investigation into alleged efforts by Trump and 18 co-defendants to overturn the 2020 election results in Georgia. The 98-page indictment, which was released in August 2023, includes 41 counts. Although some co-defendants have pleaded guilty, others have rejected deals, and multiple efforts have been made to disqualify Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis from the case. As of late November 2024, the Georgia Court of Appeals temporarily halted proceedings, awaiting further developments.
Trump’s team claims that the local prosecutor, Fani Willis, has exhibited political bias and prejudice against the former president. They argue that Willis’s actions are not merely prosecutorial but are politically motivated, aimed at bolstering her position as a political figure rather than administering justice impartially. The defense asserts that Willis’s actions contradict the will of Georgia’s voters, who have elected Trump as President-Elect, and that continuing the case against him violates the Constitution’s structure.
The motion concludes by urging the court to examine whether it and the trial court have jurisdiction over the case in light of Trump’s status as President-Elect. If the court agrees with the defense’s argument, it could lead to the dismissal of the charges against Trump, with a directive for the trial court to immediately drop the indictment. This legal maneuver represents a strategic attempt to remove the legal burden on Trump before he formally assumes the presidency, highlighting the ongoing political and legal battle surrounding his actions post-presidency.
The case has broader implications, not only for Trump but for the relationship between state and federal legal authority, particularly when it involves high-ranking officials. If the court accepts the arguments presented in the motion, it could set a significant precedent regarding the immunity of a president-elect from state-level prosecution.
