What a difference a year makes.
At this time last year, Donald Trump was facing the prospect of four criminal trials that could put him behind bars for years, and hundreds of millions of dollars in penalties from civil cases that had been brought against him.
Now the criminal cases against him are in jeopardy — the two federal prosecutions have already been dismissed, while the two state cases are stalled — and appeals courts might whittle down the hefty civil judgments against him.
The change in circumstance is largely due to Trump’s election win — the federal cases were dropped because of a Justice Department legal opinion that sitting presidents can’t be prosecuted, a position Trump’s lawyers have said should be applied to the state cases, as well.
Trump’s attorneys in his civil cases, meanwhile, are trying to use his soon-to-be office to their benefit, as well.
His spokesperson, Steven Cheung, said in a statement that Trump’s election was a “mandate” from the American people, who “demanded an immediate end to the political weaponization of our justice system and a swift dismissal of all the Witch Hunts against him. We look forward to uniting our country as President Trump Makes America Great Again.”
Here’s a look at where the various court cases against the president-elect stand, and how they may — or may not — be affected by his inauguration Jan. 20.
Hush money case
Trump was convicted in New York state court in May of 34 counts of falsifying business records related to a hush money payment his then-lawyer Michael Cohen paid porn star Stormy Daniels in the closing days of the 2016 presidential election. Daniels claimed she had a sexual encounter with Trump in 2006, an allegation he has denied.
Trump, who pleaded not guilty to the charges, was initially set to be sentenced in July, a date that got pushed back after the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision that created a new standard for presidential immunity. His attorneys argued that the high court’s ruling meant the indictment and conviction should be tossed out, since they relied in part on evidence related to Trump’s time in office.
Judge Juan Merchan rejected that argument in a Dec. 16 ruling, but he has yet to rule on Trump’s separate, more sweeping motion to dismiss the case, or to set a new date for Trump’s sentencing.
The judge seemed to indicate in another decision that same day knocking down Trump’s argument that he’s already protected by immunity as president-elect that it might not be possible to sentence him after he takes office.
Merchan noted that the Justice Department memo and the Supreme Court ruling both “speak to the need for a sitting President to be free to fully discharge the powers and duties of his office without criminal process interfering with his ability to carry out his constitutional functions.”
The Manhattan district attorney’s office has argued that Merchan could sentence Trump once his term in office is done, a position Trump’s attorneys say should be denied because he’d have the prospect of a criminal sentencing hanging over his head for the duration of his time in office.
The judge has yet to rule on the issue.
Georgia election interference case
Fulton County, Georgia, District Attorney Fani Willis’ office indicted Trump and 18 co-defendants in August 2023 on charges of conspiring to illegally overturn his 2020 election loss to Joe Biden in the state. Trump pleaded not guilty.
No trial date was ever set in the case, which was stalled for several months over allegations of conflict of interest involving Willis. Trump and some of his co-defendants argued that she should be disqualified because of those allegations, which centered on a romantic relationship she had with the special prosecutor she’d appointed to oversee the case.
A Georgia appeals court sided with Trump in a Dec. 19 ruling, ordering Willis and her office to be disqualified from the case. Willis’ office is appealing the ruling, a process that can take several months.
Even if her appeal is successful, she would have to wait until Trump was out of office to try him, since the trial has been estimated to take months.
If the Georgia Supreme Court decides not to hear the appeal or if her appeal is unsuccessful, the case would be referred to the executive director of the Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council of Georgia, which would have to find another prosecutor for the sprawling, labor-intensive case.
The council’s executive director, Pete Skandalakis, told NBC News last year that if someone new took over the case, the person would be able to use the investigative work that has been completed by the DA’s office, but would also have the ability to do additional investigative work and to use — or discard — some or all of Willis’ indictment.
Civil fraud verdict
The biggest potential financial blow looming over the president-elect comes from the $350 million judgment a New York judge hit him and his company with in February of last year after finding they had engaged in years of fraudulent conduct.
Trump has denied the allegations in the lawsuit from state Attorney General Letitia James’ office and appealed the judgment, which has since swelled to more than $500 million with interest. Trump is on the hook for almost $489 million of that amount.
During arguments before the state Appellate Division, a midlevel appeals court, in September, three members of the five-judge panel indicated that they thought the financial penalty was too large, but the panel has yet to rule.
After the November election, Trump attorney John Sauer asked James’ office to voluntarily dismiss the case in order to promote “unity” while claiming the case could interfere with Trump’s impending duties as president if it continues to proceed. James’ office declined the invitation.
E. Jean Carroll verdicts
Writer E. Jean Carroll has scored two sizeable civil verdicts against Trump in New York federal court in the last two years — a 2023 award of $5 million after Trump was found liable for sexually abusing and defaming her, and a separate $83 million award last year for defaming her while he was president.
Trump has denied the allegations and appealed both verdicts to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The appeals court rejected his appeal of the $5 million verdict this week, a decision Trump’s spokesperson said “will continue to be appealed.”
Arguments on the $83 million verdict are still pending, with Carroll’s attorneys set to push back later this month on Trump’s claim that the Supreme Court’s July immunity ruling means that he shouldn’t have been found liable for his comments in office.
Jan. 6 lawsuits
While the criminal federal election interference case against Trump over the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol has been dismissed, he’s still facing eight related civil suits from law enforcement personnel who were injured in the attack and some Democratic members of Congress.
Trump has argued that his actions were protected by presidential immunity, an issue on which both sides are expected to submit filings in the coming months.
The federal judge presiding over the case, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta for the District of Columbia Circuit, has said he plans to rule on the issue by the summer, according to a court filing.
Central Park Five
Trump is facing one other pending civil suit where his ascendency to the presidency is not expected to have a direct impact —a defamation suit brought against him in October by members of the so-called Central Park Five.
The five — Antron McCray, Kevin Richardson, Yusef Salaam, Raymond Santana and Korey Wise — are suing Trump over his remarks about them during his presidential debate with Kamala Harris.
Trump erroneously said the five pleaded guilty when they were tried in connection with the assault and rape of a woman who had been running in Central Park on April 19, 1989, and he incorrectly stated that the victim had died.
“They pled guilty. And I said, well, if they pled guilty, they badly hurt a person, killed a person ultimately. And if they pled guilty — then they pled we’re not guilty,” Trump said at the debate.
The quintet — who were ages 14 to 16 at the time of the attack and now call themselves the “Exonerated Five” — have said they were coerced into making false confessions by the police. They all pleaded not guilty and were convicted at trial. They were exonerated in 2002 after DNA evidence linked another man, a serial rapist, to the attack and he admitted to being the lone attacker.
Trump has moved to dismiss the suit, arguing that his remarks were “substantially true” because the five at one point had admitted guilt and the victim, who’d been beaten into a coma, had at one point been described as “virtually dead.”
Trump also contended the remarks were protected political speech. “Further, ‘rhetorical hyperbole’ is expected in political debate and audiences are primed to be skeptical of what they hear,” his lawyers argued in a filing.
The five men maintain that they were defamed and suffered “severe emotional distress and reputational harm” and have asked the judge to deny Trump’s motion to dismiss their suit.
This article was originally published on NBCNews.com
