Trump's Legal Battles Continue: Judges Reject Dismissal Bids in Georgia and Federal Cases
Mike Roemer/AP

On Thursday, former President Donald Trump faced significant legal setbacks in his attempts to halt the criminal cases against him. Judges in both the Georgia election interference case and the federal classified documents case dismissed Trump’s requests to have the cases thrown out. These developments keep the possibility of these cases going to trial alive.

While the judges have yet to rule on other dismissal requests by Trump, the potential for these cases to reach trial remains. This includes a third criminal prosecution against Trump, the 2016 campaign hush money case in New York, which is set to begin this month.

Despite these setbacks, the timeline for the other prosecutions against Trump, including a federal election subversion case in Washington, DC, remains uncertain. Trump has successfully used delay tactics to prolong pretrial litigation in the prosecutions against him.

In the classified documents case, US District Judge Aileen Cannon rejected Trump’s request to dismiss the case based on his claim that he had the authority to take classified or sensitive documents with him after leaving the White House. However, she left the door open for Trump to use this argument in his defense at trial.

In the Georgia election subversion case, Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee dismissed the argument that Trump’s alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election were protected under the First Amendment. This ruling pushes the state racketeering case against Trump forward, with the possibility of a trial as soon as August.

Trump’s legal team has stated they “respectfully disagree” with the ruling and will explore their options. Meanwhile, the Fulton County district attorney’s office declined to comment on Thursday’s order from McAfee.

While the new order from Cannon in the federal classified documents case was a loss for Trump, prosecutors were also rebuffed in their request for more clarity from the judge about how she views the Presidential Records Act in the context of the case.

This story and headline have been updated with additional reporting.