How a year can change things.
At this time last year, Donald Trump was facing hundreds of millions of dollars in penalties from civil actions that had been filed against him, as well as the possibility of four criminal prosecutions that may result in years in prison.
The criminal proceedings against him are currently in doubt; two federal prosecutions have already been dropped, one state case is pending, and the heavy civil judgments against him may be weakened by appeals courts.
Trump’s election victory is mostly to blame for the situation’s transformation.The Justice Department’s ruling that sitting presidents cannot be prosecuted led to the dismissal of the federal cases; Trump’s attorneys have stated that this ruling should also apply to the state cases.
Meanwhile, Trump’s lawyers in his legal cases are also attempting to take advantage of his soon-to-be position.
In a statement released in December, his spokesperson Steven Cheung claimed that the American people had given Trump the “mandate” to win the election, calling for “a swift dismissal of all the Witch Hunts against him and an immediate end to the political weaponization of our justice system.” We’re excited to bring our nation together as President Trump restores America’s greatness.
Here is a look at the current status of the numerous legal proceedings against the president-elect and how his inauguration on January 20 may or may not impact them.
Hush money case
In May, a New York state court found Trump guilty on 34 charges of falsifying business documents pertaining to a hush money payment made to porn star Stormy Daniels by his former attorney, Michael Cohen, during the final days of the 2016 presidential campaign. Trump has refuted Daniels’ claim that she had a sexual encounter with him in 2006.
Trump, who entered a not guilty plea to the charges, was originally scheduled to be sentenced in July; but, this date was postponed following a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that established a new criterion for presidential immunity. Since the indictment and conviction were based in part on evidence pertaining to Trump’s tenure in office, his lawyers contended that the high court’s decision meant they should be overturned.
In a decision on December 16, Judge Juan Merchan dismissed that argument. He dismissed a separate, more comprehensive move to dismiss the case on January 3, weeks later, and said that he would sentence the president-elect on January 10, a few days before Trump takes the oath of office.
However, Merchan stated that Trump would not be imprisoned.
“Finding no legal impediment to sentencing and recognizing that Presidential immunity will likely attach once Defendant takes his Oath of Office, it is incumbent upon this Court to set this matter down for the imposition of sentence prior to January 20, 2025,” Merchan wrote in his order from January 3.
In an attempt to stop the sentencing, Trump’s lawyers asked Merchan to postpone the hearing until after his appeal. Trump is requesting an appeals court to intervene after the judge denied his application in a decision on January 6.
Trump’s lawyers said that the Manhattan district attorney’s office should reject the Manhattan district attorney’s office’s earlier argument that Merchan could sentence Trump after his term in office ended since he would be facing the possibility of a criminal punishment for the duration of his tenure.
“Binding precedent does not provide that an individual, upon becoming President, can retroactively dismiss or vacate prior criminal acts nor does it grant blanket Presidential-elect immunity,” Merchan stated in the court petition. “This Court is therefore forbidden from recognizing either form of immunity.”
Georgia election interference case
In August 2023, the office of Fulton County, Georgia, District Attorney Fani Willis indicted Trump and eighteen co-defendants on accusations of attempting to unlawfully overturn the state’s 2020 election defeat to Joe Biden. Trump entered a not guilty plea.
The lawsuit was put on hold for months due to Willis’s alleged conflicts of interest, and no trial date was ever scheduled. The charges, which focused on a love relationship she had with the special prosecutor she had assigned to supervise the investigation, led Trump and several of his co-defendants to claim that she should be disqualified.
In a Dec. 19 decision, a Georgia appeals court ruled in favor of Trump and ordered Willis and her office to be removed from the case. The decision is being appealed by Willis’ office, which may take many months.
The trial has been predicted to take months, so even if her appeal is successful, she would have to wait until Trump was out of office before trying him.
The case would be sent to the executive director of the Prosecuting Attorneys Council of Georgia, which would have to choose a different prosecutor for the extensive, time-consuming case, if the Georgia Supreme Court declined to consider the appeal or if her appeal was denied.
Last year, Peter Skandalakis, the executive director of the council, told NBC News that if a new person took over the case, they would be able to use the investigative work that the DA’s office had already done. They would also be able to do additional research and use or discard all or part of Willis’ indictment.
Civil fraud verdict
The largest possible financial setback facing the president-elect is the $350 million judgment that a New York judge handed down against him and his business in February after discovering that they had committed years of deceptive behavior.
Trump has challenged the ruling, which has already increased to more than $500 million with interest, and refuted the accusations made in the case from the office of state attorney general Letitia James. Nearly $489 million of the sum is owed to Trump.
Three members of the five-judge panel stated during arguments before the state Appellate Division, a midlevel appeals court, in September that they believed the monetary penalty was excessive; however, the panel has not yet rendered a decision.
In an effort to foster unity, Trump’s lawyer John Sauer requested that James’ office voluntarily drop the investigation after the November election. He said that if the case went forward, it may impede Trump’s upcoming responsibilities as president. The invitation was declined by James Office.
E. Jean Carroll verdicts
In the past two years, author E. Jean Carroll has won two substantial civil verdicts against Trump in federal court in New York: a $5 million victory in 2023 after Trump was found guilty of sexually abusing and defaming her, and another $83 million award last year for defaming her while he was president.
Trump appealed both decisions to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and rejected the accusations.
Trump’s spokesperson stated that the decision will be challenged further after the appellate court denied his appeal of the $5 million verdict this week.
Arguments over the $83 million verdict are still ongoing, and later this month, Carroll’s lawyers are scheduled to refute Trump’s argument that he shouldn’t have been held accountable for his remarks while in office due to the Supreme Court’s July immunity ruling.
Jan. 6 lawsuits
Trump still faces eight related civil complaints from law enforcement officers hurt in the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol and several Democratic members of Congress, even though the criminal federal election meddling case against him has been dropped.
In the upcoming months, both sides are anticipated to file documents on Trump’s claim that presidential immunity shielded his activities.
According to a court filing, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta for the District of Columbia Circuit, the federal judge overseeing the case, has stated that he intends to make a decision by the summer.
Central Park Five
Members of the so-called Central Park Five filed a defamation lawsuit against Trump in October, and he is currently facing another pending civil litigation in which it is not anticipated that his election to the presidency will directly affect the case.
The five are suing Trump over his comments about them in his presidential debate with Kamala Harris: Antron McCray, Kevin Richardson, Yusef Salaam, Raymond Santana, and Korey Wise.
When the five were tried for assaulting and raping a woman who was running in Central Park on April 19, 1989, Trump falsely claimed that the victim had passed away and that they had entered a guilty plea.
They entered a guilty plea. And I replied, “Well, if they pled guilty, they killed someone in the end and seriously injured someone else.” And they pled we’re not guilty if they pled guilty, Trump stated during the debate.
The five, who now identify as the Exonerated Five and were between the ages of 14 and 16 at the time of the incident, have claimed that the police forced them into making false confessions. After entering not guilty pleas, they were all found guilty at trial. In 2002, they were exonerated after a serial rapist confessed to being the only attacker and DNA evidence connected him to the crime.
Trump has filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, claiming that his statements were essentially accurate because the victim, who had been pummeled into a coma, had once been described as practically dead and the five had accepted culpability.
Additionally, Trump argued that the comments qualified as protected political speech. Furthermore, his attorneys contended in the brief that audiences are predisposed to be dubious of what they hear and that rhetorical hyperbole is customary in political discourse.
The five men have asked the judge to reject Trump’s move to dismiss their lawsuit, arguing that they were defamed and that their reputations were harmed.
Note: Every piece of content is rigorously reviewed by our team of experienced writers and editors to ensure its accuracy. Our writers use credible sources and adhere to strict fact-checking protocols to verify all claims and data before publication. If an error is identified, we promptly correct it and strive for transparency in all updates, feel free to reach out to us via email. We appreciate your trust and support!