Donald Trump is back as president: What happens to the criminal, civil cases against him?

Donald Trump has returned to the White House despite facing multiple criminal and civil charges, making him the first US president to be elected while under active prosecution.

Trump’s election victory has introduced complex questions around presidential immunity, the extent of pardon power, and how his legal battles will unfold during his term.

With four prosecutions covering both state and federal allegations, Trump’s reelection has created a few legal uncertainties.

We take a look at the status of each case and any potential legal implications:

New York hush money case

One of the most prominent cases against Trump involves the hush money payments to adult film actress Stormy Daniels. Trump was convicted in May on 34 counts of falsifying business records related to these payments.

This conviction, part of a high-profile New York state prosecution, makes him the first former US president to be found guilty of a felony. New York State Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan postponed sentencing until after the election to avoid any perceived impact on voters.

More from United States Of America

From father's advice to pastor's call: How Charlie Kirk's shooter Tyler Robinson was turned in to police Charlie Kirk: Killer still at large, motive uncertain; FBI releases photo with $100,000 reward

Now, with Trump as president-elect, his attorneys are expected to request a further delay of the current November 26 sentencing date, seeking to avoid the unprecedented situation of sentencing a president-elect.

Under the US Constitution, the president has the authority to issue pardons for federal crimes, barring impeachment cases. However, this power does not extend to state offenses, and Trump’s New York conviction falls under state jurisdiction.

Also Watch:

This means he cannot pardon himself for the 34 state counts against him, limiting his ability to avoid penalties if his conviction is upheld. The case may yet be influenced by recent Supreme Court rulings on presidential immunity, which Trump’s lawyers argue should lead to a dismissal of the charges.

Editor’s Picks

1

Who is Sarah McBride, the first openly transgender person in the US Congress? 2

'God spared my life for a reason': Donald Trump's victory speech in 13 points

Judge Merchan is expected to rule on this argument by November 12. If the conviction stands, Trump could appeal it, potentially delaying a resolution even further.

Federal election interference case

One of Trump’s two federal cases involves his alleged attempts to interfere in the 2020 election results. Trump has been charged with spreading misinformation about election fraud and attempting to block the certification of votes following his loss to incumbent President Joe Biden.

Special Counsel Jack Smith, who was appointed to lead this investigation, has been a frequent target of Trump’s criticism. Trump has pledged to dismiss Smith “within two seconds” of taking office, suggesting his intention to end the federal cases by dismissing Smith, a move within presidential authority.

This case is overseen by Judge Tanya Chutkan, an Obama appointee. Trump’s lawyers have cited a recent Supreme Court ruling, which grants presidents broad criminal immunity for actions related to their official duties, as a basis to narrow the charges against him.

Judge Chutkan will determine how much of the case remains viable under this interpretation, and any decision could be appealed to the Supreme Court before a trial begins. The federal judiciary’s stance on prosecuting a sitting president remains ambiguous, especially with the immunity defence potentially shielding Trump from immediate prosecution.

Federal classified documents case

The second federal case centers on Trump’s alleged unlawful retention of classified documents after his first term. Trump faces obstruction charges for purportedly attempting to prevent federal authorities from recovering these documents.

In July, US District Judge Aileen Cannon, who was appointed by Trump, dismissed the charges, ruling that Smith’s appointment was procedurally flawed. Smith’s team has since appealed this ruling, hoping to reinstate the charges.

Also Read | FBI raids Mar-a-Lago: A look at history and controversies of Donald Trump’s ‘Winter White House’

The appeal process could prove irrelevant if Trump’s promise to fire Smith is fulfilled, as he could effectively terminate the case upon taking office. Additionally, Trump could explore a self-pardon in this case, although the Constitution remains ambiguous on the legality of self-pardons, and no previous president has attempted it.

If the self-pardon attempt fails and Cannon’s dismissal is reversed, the federal case could proceed in the courts, albeit with Trump’s re-election.

Georgia racketeering case

The final case against Trump originates from Georgia, where state prosecutors charged him under racketeering laws in connection with alleged efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss.

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis invoked racketeering laws originally used to target organised crime, resulting in charges against Trump and 14 co-defendants, including former associates Rudy Giuliani and Mark Meadows.

The Georgia case remains a legal outlier because, as with the New York case, Trump cannot use his federal pardon power here. Moreover, as a state case, it falls outside federal jurisdiction, leaving Trump’s ability to influence the proceedings limited.

His lawyers have sought to delay the case and have also moved to disqualify Willis, alleging conflicts of interest related to her personal relationships. Oral arguments on this disqualification motion are scheduled for December 5.

Also Read | Republicans retake the Senate: Why does the US Senate race matter?

Even if the appeal to disqualify Willis fails, legal experts predict the case may remain on hold for the duration of Trump’s term.

Additionally, multiple co-defendants, including Meadows and Jeffrey Clark, have filed separate motions to transfer their charges to federal court, which, if granted, could extend the timeline for proceedings. Meadows’ motion is due to be considered by the US Supreme Court in its upcoming conference, which will determine whether the court will take up the issue.

Questions remain unanswered as Trump wins

As Trump resumes office on January 20, legal analysts suggest his presidential immunity could prevent any active prosecution against him at the federal level, and a self-pardon attempt could set a controversial precedent.

In state cases, the limits on his powers are clear, although Trump’s legal team may still use constitutional arguments to stall proceedings.

Despite these complexities, Trump’s reelection has effectively shielded him from the immediate legal consequences he might have faced outside office. His criminal defence strategy now rests on leveraging the protections and powers of his presidential role.

Winning the election was Trump’s strongest defence — and well.

Also Read | Zelenskyy's bane, Netanyahu's gain: Why Donald Trump's win is bad news for Ukraine but not for Israel

With inputs from agencies