Holding Trump Accountable: Letitia James Speaks Out | The Joy Reid Show
The Joy Reid Show
September 15, 2025
VIDEO:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sD9Af2Fd458
The Joy Reid Show
In this episode of the Joy Reid Show, Attorney General Letitia James discusses her ongoing investigation into the Trump Organization, the legal challenges faced, and the broader implications of these actions on civil rights, particularly for Black women. She addresses the patterns of targeting individuals who challenge Trump, the impact of immigration policies, and the economic consequences of tariffs. James emphasizes the importance of standing up for the rights of New Yorkers and the need for accountability in leadership.
Chapters:
In this episode of the Joy Reid Show, Attorney General Letitia James discusses her ongoing investigation into the Trump Organization, the legal challenges faced, and the broader implications of these actions on civil rights, particularly for Black women. She addresses the patterns of targeting individuals who challenge Trump, the impact of immigration policies, and the economic consequences of tariffs. James emphasizes the importance of standing up for the rights of New Yorkers and the need for accountability in leadership.
Chapters:
00:00 Introduction and Context of the Investigation
01:54 Letitia James on the Trump Organization Investigation
07:07 Legal Proceedings and Outcomes
12:09 Patterns of Targeting Black Women in Legal Actions
18:06 The Impact of Immigration Policies
20:42 Response to Trump's Tariffs and Economic Policies
34:01 Defending Rights and Future Aspirations
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/18/us/politics/trump-supreme-court-fed.html
Trump Asks Supreme Court to Allow Removal of Fed Governor
President Trump had pressed to fire Lisa Cook before the central bank’s meeting, at which the Fed voted to cut interest rates.
Listen to this article · 6:15 minutes
Learn more
A U.S. District Court judge had temporarily blocked President Trump from ousting Lisa Cook from the Fed.Credit: Anna Rose Layden/Bloomberg
by Ann E. Marimow
Ann E. Marimow covers the Supreme Court.
September 18, 2025
New York Times
The Trump administration on Thursday asked the Supreme Court to immediately allow the president to remove Lisa Cook as a Federal Reserve governor, setting up a key test of presidential power with potentially huge economic consequences.
President Trump has moved aggressively to fire leaders of independent agencies as he seeks to expand executive power and seize control of the federal bureaucracy. His administration has targeted the central bank for months, pressing policymakers to lower interest rates.
The court’s conservative majority has repeatedly allowed Mr. Trump to at least provisionally fire leaders of other agencies without stating a reason, despite statutes passed by Congress intended to ensure political independence. The justices, however, have suggested that the Fed may be uniquely insulated from presidential meddling under the law.
In any case, with the Fed, Mr. Trump said there was “sufficient cause” to fire Ms. Cook.
Justice Department lawyers have argued that the president has the power to fire Ms. Cook because Mr. Trump has alleged that she engaged in mortgage fraud in loan documents she signed before she joined the Fed in 2022. Ms. Cook has not been charged with a crime.
The emergency request to the Supreme Court came three days after an appeals court refused to allow the president to remove Ms. Cook, who was appointed by President Joseph R. Biden Jr., while her lawsuit challenging her firing was pending. As a result, Ms. Cook was present on Wednesday when the Federal Reserve voted to cut interest rates for the first time since December.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the justices on Thursday that the reinstatement of Ms. Cook by the lower courts was “yet another case of improper judicial interference with the president’s removal authority — here, interference with the president’s authority to remove members of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors for cause.”
In response, Ms. Cook’s lawyers urged the justices to resist the president’s request, which they said would be an “extraordinary step.”
“Temporarily removing her from her post would threaten our nation’s economic stability and raise questions about the Federal Reserve’s continued independence — risking shock waves in the financial markets that could not easily be undone,” her legal team said in a new filing.
A U.S. District Court judge in Washington on Sept. 9 had temporarily blocked Mr. Trump from ousting Ms. Cook. The judge, Jia Cobb, said Ms. Cook could not be removed for conduct that occurred before she became a Fed governor, nor for claims that did not involve her professional conduct.
The government then filed an emergency request with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. A divided three-judge panel refused to immediately allow Ms. Cook’s removal, prompting the appeal to the Supreme Court.
In a 2-to-1 decision, the appeals court said tenure protections for the Fed were devised to “assure members of the Board of Governors — and national and global markets — that they do not serve at will and thus enjoy a measure of policy independence from the president,” according to a statement written by Judge Bradley N. Garcia and joined by Judge J. Michelle Childs, both nominees of Mr. Biden.
Judge Gregory G. Katsas dissented, citing the Federal Reserve Act, first enacted in 1913, which states that each member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors will hold office for 14 years, unless “removed for cause by the president.”
“The president plainly invoked a cause relating to Cook’s conduct, ability, fitness or competence,” wrote Judge Katsas, who was nominated by Mr. Trump. “The allegations against Cook could constitute mortgage fraud if she acted knowingly, and that is a felony offense.”
The administration’s filing on Thursday asked Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. to immediately clear the way for Ms. Cook’s removal while litigation continued at the D.C. Circuit. Mr. Trump’s lawyers said the lower-court rulings “invite judicial micromanagement” of his executive powers “even where, as here, courts have no authority to review the substance of the president’s ultimate decision.” The government’s lawyers also pushed back on the appeals court’s finding that Ms. Cook had not had a fair or due process to respond to the allegations against her.
“Due process is a flexible concept; whatever process is due to principal officers was provided here,” Mr. Sauer wrote.
Ms. Cook’s lawyers had warned in court filings that a decision preventing her from attending this week’s meeting and casting a vote on interest rates would have roiled the financial markets and undermined the independence of the Fed.
The Supreme Court has recently signaled in other cases that the Fed is distinct from other independent agencies and may deserve special consideration in part because of its central role in the American economy.
In a pair of cases decided on its emergency docket in May, the Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to fire leaders of the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board without stating a reason.
But the court’s order distinguished the Fed, saying it was a “uniquely structured, quasi-private entity that follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks of the United States.”
The government’s lawyers acknowledged in their filing on Thursday that the Fed “plays a uniquely important role in the American economy.” But they told the justices that the Fed’s importance only “heightens the government’s and the public’s interest in ensuring that an ethically compromised member does not continue wielding its vast powers.”
Ms. Cook’s lawyers, led by Abbe Lowell, noted in their filing that Mr. Trump and his administration had waited until after this week’s Fed meeting to appeal to the Supreme Court.
They wrote that the president may have delayed with the understanding of “the chaos that removing Governor Cook” before the meeting “would create in the financial markets.” But then, the lawyers wrote, “he cannot now establish any need for immediate relief that would disrupt the status quo while this court considers his stay application.”
Abbie VanSickle contributed reporting.
A version of this article appears in print on Sept. 19, 2025, Section B, Page 3 of the New York edition with the headline: Trump Asks Supreme Court to Immediately Allow Removal of a Fed Governor.Order Reprints | Today’s Paper
See more on: Donald Trump, U.S. Supreme Court, Federal Reserve (The Fed), U.S. Politics
https://truthout.org/articles/gop-censure-of-ilhan-omar-fails-by-one-vote-after-democrats-maneuver-against-it/
News
Politics & Elections
GOP Censure of Ilhan Omar Fails by One Vote After Democrats Maneuver Against It
The resolution was introduced by Rep. Nancy Mace, who has repeatedly attacked Omar for her faith and Somalian origin.
by Sharon Zhang
September 18, 2025
Truthout
by Ann E. Marimow
Ann E. Marimow covers the Supreme Court.
September 18, 2025
New York Times
The Trump administration on Thursday asked the Supreme Court to immediately allow the president to remove Lisa Cook as a Federal Reserve governor, setting up a key test of presidential power with potentially huge economic consequences.
President Trump has moved aggressively to fire leaders of independent agencies as he seeks to expand executive power and seize control of the federal bureaucracy. His administration has targeted the central bank for months, pressing policymakers to lower interest rates.
The court’s conservative majority has repeatedly allowed Mr. Trump to at least provisionally fire leaders of other agencies without stating a reason, despite statutes passed by Congress intended to ensure political independence. The justices, however, have suggested that the Fed may be uniquely insulated from presidential meddling under the law.
In any case, with the Fed, Mr. Trump said there was “sufficient cause” to fire Ms. Cook.
Justice Department lawyers have argued that the president has the power to fire Ms. Cook because Mr. Trump has alleged that she engaged in mortgage fraud in loan documents she signed before she joined the Fed in 2022. Ms. Cook has not been charged with a crime.
The emergency request to the Supreme Court came three days after an appeals court refused to allow the president to remove Ms. Cook, who was appointed by President Joseph R. Biden Jr., while her lawsuit challenging her firing was pending. As a result, Ms. Cook was present on Wednesday when the Federal Reserve voted to cut interest rates for the first time since December.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the justices on Thursday that the reinstatement of Ms. Cook by the lower courts was “yet another case of improper judicial interference with the president’s removal authority — here, interference with the president’s authority to remove members of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors for cause.”
In response, Ms. Cook’s lawyers urged the justices to resist the president’s request, which they said would be an “extraordinary step.”
“Temporarily removing her from her post would threaten our nation’s economic stability and raise questions about the Federal Reserve’s continued independence — risking shock waves in the financial markets that could not easily be undone,” her legal team said in a new filing.
A U.S. District Court judge in Washington on Sept. 9 had temporarily blocked Mr. Trump from ousting Ms. Cook. The judge, Jia Cobb, said Ms. Cook could not be removed for conduct that occurred before she became a Fed governor, nor for claims that did not involve her professional conduct.
The government then filed an emergency request with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. A divided three-judge panel refused to immediately allow Ms. Cook’s removal, prompting the appeal to the Supreme Court.
In a 2-to-1 decision, the appeals court said tenure protections for the Fed were devised to “assure members of the Board of Governors — and national and global markets — that they do not serve at will and thus enjoy a measure of policy independence from the president,” according to a statement written by Judge Bradley N. Garcia and joined by Judge J. Michelle Childs, both nominees of Mr. Biden.
Judge Gregory G. Katsas dissented, citing the Federal Reserve Act, first enacted in 1913, which states that each member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors will hold office for 14 years, unless “removed for cause by the president.”
“The president plainly invoked a cause relating to Cook’s conduct, ability, fitness or competence,” wrote Judge Katsas, who was nominated by Mr. Trump. “The allegations against Cook could constitute mortgage fraud if she acted knowingly, and that is a felony offense.”
The administration’s filing on Thursday asked Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. to immediately clear the way for Ms. Cook’s removal while litigation continued at the D.C. Circuit. Mr. Trump’s lawyers said the lower-court rulings “invite judicial micromanagement” of his executive powers “even where, as here, courts have no authority to review the substance of the president’s ultimate decision.” The government’s lawyers also pushed back on the appeals court’s finding that Ms. Cook had not had a fair or due process to respond to the allegations against her.
“Due process is a flexible concept; whatever process is due to principal officers was provided here,” Mr. Sauer wrote.
Ms. Cook’s lawyers had warned in court filings that a decision preventing her from attending this week’s meeting and casting a vote on interest rates would have roiled the financial markets and undermined the independence of the Fed.
The Supreme Court has recently signaled in other cases that the Fed is distinct from other independent agencies and may deserve special consideration in part because of its central role in the American economy.
In a pair of cases decided on its emergency docket in May, the Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to fire leaders of the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board without stating a reason.
But the court’s order distinguished the Fed, saying it was a “uniquely structured, quasi-private entity that follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks of the United States.”
The government’s lawyers acknowledged in their filing on Thursday that the Fed “plays a uniquely important role in the American economy.” But they told the justices that the Fed’s importance only “heightens the government’s and the public’s interest in ensuring that an ethically compromised member does not continue wielding its vast powers.”
Ms. Cook’s lawyers, led by Abbe Lowell, noted in their filing that Mr. Trump and his administration had waited until after this week’s Fed meeting to appeal to the Supreme Court.
They wrote that the president may have delayed with the understanding of “the chaos that removing Governor Cook” before the meeting “would create in the financial markets.” But then, the lawyers wrote, “he cannot now establish any need for immediate relief that would disrupt the status quo while this court considers his stay application.”
Abbie VanSickle contributed reporting.
A version of this article appears in print on Sept. 19, 2025, Section B, Page 3 of the New York edition with the headline: Trump Asks Supreme Court to Immediately Allow Removal of a Fed Governor.Order Reprints | Today’s Paper
See more on: Donald Trump, U.S. Supreme Court, Federal Reserve (The Fed), U.S. Politics
https://truthout.org/articles/gop-censure-of-ilhan-omar-fails-by-one-vote-after-democrats-maneuver-against-it/
News
Politics & Elections
GOP Censure of Ilhan Omar Fails by One Vote After Democrats Maneuver Against It
The resolution was introduced by Rep. Nancy Mace, who has repeatedly attacked Omar for her faith and Somalian origin.
by Sharon Zhang
September 18, 2025
Truthout
Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minnesota) speaks during a press conference at City Hall following a mass shooting at Annunciation Catholic School on August 28, 2025 in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Stephen Maturen / Getty Images
An extremist House Republican’s attempt to censure Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minnesota) failed by just one vote on Wednesday, after Democrats maneuvered against it.
A vote to table the censure resolution succeeded 214 to 213, with all Democrats and four Republicans voting to kill the measure. The resolution, introduced by Rep. Nancy Mace (R-South Carolina), would have removed Omar from her assignments on the Education and Workforce Committee and the Budget Committee.
Mace claimed her censure effort was about Omar’s criticism of Charlie Kirk. In an interview last week, Omar had offered sympathy to Kirk’s family, while criticizing many of Kirk’s far right beliefs and condemning Republicans for their attacks on the left following the shooting.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/16/us/fani-willis-georgia-trump.html
Fani Willis Loses Bid to Continue Prosecuting Georgia Trump Case
The 4-3 ruling means that the criminal case against President Trump, related to his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss, will not move forward anytime soon, if ever.
Listen to this article · 7:40 minutes
Learn more
An extremist House Republican’s attempt to censure Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minnesota) failed by just one vote on Wednesday, after Democrats maneuvered against it.
A vote to table the censure resolution succeeded 214 to 213, with all Democrats and four Republicans voting to kill the measure. The resolution, introduced by Rep. Nancy Mace (R-South Carolina), would have removed Omar from her assignments on the Education and Workforce Committee and the Budget Committee.
Mace claimed her censure effort was about Omar’s criticism of Charlie Kirk. In an interview last week, Omar had offered sympathy to Kirk’s family, while criticizing many of Kirk’s far right beliefs and condemning Republicans for their attacks on the left following the shooting.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/16/us/fani-willis-georgia-trump.html
Fani Willis Loses Bid to Continue Prosecuting Georgia Trump Case
The 4-3 ruling means that the criminal case against President Trump, related to his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss, will not move forward anytime soon, if ever.
Listen to this article · 7:40 minutes
Learn more
The Georgia Supreme Court disqualified Fani T. Willis, the Fulton County district attorney, from prosecuting President Trump in the election interference case. Credit: Brynn Anderson/Associated Press
by Richard Fausset and Danny Hakim
Richard Fausset reported from Atlanta
September 16, 2025
New York Times
The Georgia Supreme Court on Tuesday dealt another blow to the moribund election interference case against President Trump, declining to intervene after an appeals court ruling last year disqualified Fani T. Willis, the Fulton County district attorney, from prosecuting the case.
The 4-3 ruling means that the criminal case — once considered one of the most serious legal threats to Mr. Trump after he sought to overturn his 2020 election loss — will not move forward anytime soon, if ever. The Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council of Georgia, a state entity, will now decide whether to reassign the case, and to whom.
The executive director of the council, Pete Skandalakis, served for years as a Republican district attorney. A new prosecutor could decide to press on with the case — now against a sitting president — drop it or bring a modified version. If charges remain against Mr. Trump, he would most likely not face trial until after his term ends in 2029. But if a new prosecutor wanted to proceed with the case against some or all of the 14 other defendants, they could be tried sooner.
Mr. Skandalakis ended up personally handling a piece of the investigation after Ms. Willis was disqualified from developing a case against Georgia’s lieutenant governor, Burt Jones, who acted as a fake elector for Mr. Trump in 2020. Ms. Willis was disqualified from weighing charges against Mr. Jones after headlining a fund-raiser for one of his political rivals. Mr. Skandalakis ultimately declined to bring any charges against Mr. Jones.
Mr. Trump’s co-defendants in the case include Mark Meadows, the former White House chief of staff; Rudy Giuliani, the president’s onetime personal lawyer; and David Shafer, the former head of the Republican Party in Georgia.
The original multicount indictment, which was handed up in August 2023, accused Mr. Trump and a number of his allies of organizing a criminal racketeering enterprise to reverse the election results in Georgia, which Mr. Trump narrowly lost in 2020. Part of the basis for the indictment was a phone call Mr. Trump made in January 2021 to Brad Raffensperger, Georgia’s Republican secretary of state, asking Mr. Raffensperger to “find” enough votes to overturn the election results.
The majority opinion released Tuesday, written by Justice Andrew A. Pinson, a Republican appointee, said that while “the public may well be interested in the case underlying this petition,” the court’s focus was on the narrow question of whether it should intervene in the disqualification of a local district attorney because of an “appearance of impropriety” —which, in this case, stemmed from the fact that Ms. Willis had engaged in a romantic affair with the lawyer she had hired to manage the prosecution.
The justices decided that the matter did “not raise the kind of legal question that warrants further review.”
A trial judge had allowed Ms. Willis to keep the case despite revelations about her romantic relationship. The appeals court reversed the judge’s decision.
Tuesday’s ruling included a dissenting opinion by Justice Carla Wong McMillian, another Republican appointee, who wrote that the legal question of “whether an attorney can be disqualified based on the appearance of impropriety alone” affects “every single active lawyer in the State of Georgia.” She added that prior court rulings were in conflict on the matter and needed to be resolved.
Trump Administration: Live Updates
Updated
September 18, 2025
Trump pressures broadcasters over critical coverage, escalating an attack on speech.
Here’s how broadcasters can keep or lose their licenses.
11 elected officials are arrested while trying to access N.Y.C. ICE facility.
The ruling is the latest in a series of blows to Ms. Willis, a Democrat who rocketed to national prominence by taking the remarkable step of indicting a former president in a state criminal court. Months after the indictment, defense lawyers brought to light her romantic relationship with her fellow prosecutor, Nathan Wade, arguing that it constituted a conflict of interest.
Defense attorneys accused Ms. Willis of “self-dealing” because she took a number of vacations with Mr. Wade after hiring him, while using public funds to pay him more than $650,000 for his work on the case.
“While I disagree with the decision of the Georgia Court of Appeals and the Georgia Supreme Court’s divided decision not to review it, I respect the legal process and the courts,” Ms. Willis said in an emailed statement on Tuesday. “Accordingly, my office will make the case file and evidence available to the Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council for use in the ongoing litigation. I hope that whoever is assigned to handle the case will have the courage to do what the evidence and the law demand.”
Mr. Trump sounded a note of vindication in a social media post on Tuesday that also attacked Ms. Willis and Mr. Wade. He wrote of their “torrid ‘love’ affair,” and accused them of lying under oath in court hearings.
He also accused them of unjustly prosecuting him, and, as he has done before, leveled the same accusation against Jack Smith, the former special counsel who oversaw two federal inquiries into and indictments of Mr. Trump. Those investigations focused on whether Mr. Trump mishandled classified documents after he left office, as well as his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. Both were dropped after Mr. Trump won the 2024 election. “The Prosecutorial Weaponization of DONALD J. TRUMP had no limits,” Mr. Trump wrote. “They went after their Political Opponent at levels never seen before, and LOST. They are now CRIMINALS who will hopefully pay serious consequences for their illegal actions.”
Mr. Smith is currently the subject of an investigation by the Office of Special Counsel. Senator Tom Cotton, Republican of Arkansas, persuaded the office to begin the inquiry, and has claimed that Mr. Smith’s cases may have been efforts to sway the 2024 election. Mr. Smith’s lawyers have called the ethics complaint “imaginary and unfounded.”
The Justice Department is also investigating Letitia James, the New York attorney general, who won a civil fraud case against Mr. Trump last year only to see an appellate court later throw out a half-billion-dollar judgment.
Some observers wonder whether Ms. Willis will eventually be targeted as well.
Steve Sadow, the lead counsel for Mr. Trump in the case, said that the Georgia Supreme Court had ruled correctly, echoing the president’s position that he had been unjustly targeted in an act of politically motivated “lawfare.”
“Willis’ misconduct during the investigation and prosecution of President Trump was egregious and she deserved nothing less than disqualification,” Mr. Sadow said in a statement. “This proper decision should bring an end to the wrongful political, lawfare persecutions of the President.”
In a statement on Tuesday, Mr. Skandalakis, the lawyer tasked with reassigning the case, said that with the disqualification of Ms. Willis and her office, the search for a new prosecutor “will begin today.”
Five states brought charges related to the Trump campaign’s handling of the 2020 election, but the Georgia ruling on Tuesday was only the latest positive news for the president’s side. A week ago, a Michigan judge threw out criminal cases against 15 people who acted as fake 2020 Trump electors in that state, saying prosecutors there had not established that there had been any intent to commit fraud.
In May, a judge ordered Arizona prosecutors to send an electors case in that state back to a grand jury; the prosecutors have appealed that decision. A case in Nevada has been slowed by challenges over its venue, while a fifth elections case, against three Trump campaign aides and advisers, is pending in Wisconsin.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS:
Richard Fausset, a Times reporter based in Atlanta, writes about the American South, focusing on politics, culture, race, poverty and criminal justice.
Danny Hakim is a reporter on the Investigations team at The Times, focused primarily on politics.
A version of this article appears in print on Sept. 17, 2025, Section A, Page 17 of the New York edition with the headline: District Attorney Loses Bid to Continue Prosecuting Case Against Trump in Georgia .
Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe
See more on: U.S. Politics, Fani Willis, Donald Trump
The Latest on the Trump Administration:
by Richard Fausset and Danny Hakim
Richard Fausset reported from Atlanta
September 16, 2025
New York Times
The Georgia Supreme Court on Tuesday dealt another blow to the moribund election interference case against President Trump, declining to intervene after an appeals court ruling last year disqualified Fani T. Willis, the Fulton County district attorney, from prosecuting the case.
The 4-3 ruling means that the criminal case — once considered one of the most serious legal threats to Mr. Trump after he sought to overturn his 2020 election loss — will not move forward anytime soon, if ever. The Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council of Georgia, a state entity, will now decide whether to reassign the case, and to whom.
The executive director of the council, Pete Skandalakis, served for years as a Republican district attorney. A new prosecutor could decide to press on with the case — now against a sitting president — drop it or bring a modified version. If charges remain against Mr. Trump, he would most likely not face trial until after his term ends in 2029. But if a new prosecutor wanted to proceed with the case against some or all of the 14 other defendants, they could be tried sooner.
Mr. Skandalakis ended up personally handling a piece of the investigation after Ms. Willis was disqualified from developing a case against Georgia’s lieutenant governor, Burt Jones, who acted as a fake elector for Mr. Trump in 2020. Ms. Willis was disqualified from weighing charges against Mr. Jones after headlining a fund-raiser for one of his political rivals. Mr. Skandalakis ultimately declined to bring any charges against Mr. Jones.
Mr. Trump’s co-defendants in the case include Mark Meadows, the former White House chief of staff; Rudy Giuliani, the president’s onetime personal lawyer; and David Shafer, the former head of the Republican Party in Georgia.
The original multicount indictment, which was handed up in August 2023, accused Mr. Trump and a number of his allies of organizing a criminal racketeering enterprise to reverse the election results in Georgia, which Mr. Trump narrowly lost in 2020. Part of the basis for the indictment was a phone call Mr. Trump made in January 2021 to Brad Raffensperger, Georgia’s Republican secretary of state, asking Mr. Raffensperger to “find” enough votes to overturn the election results.
The majority opinion released Tuesday, written by Justice Andrew A. Pinson, a Republican appointee, said that while “the public may well be interested in the case underlying this petition,” the court’s focus was on the narrow question of whether it should intervene in the disqualification of a local district attorney because of an “appearance of impropriety” —which, in this case, stemmed from the fact that Ms. Willis had engaged in a romantic affair with the lawyer she had hired to manage the prosecution.
The justices decided that the matter did “not raise the kind of legal question that warrants further review.”
A trial judge had allowed Ms. Willis to keep the case despite revelations about her romantic relationship. The appeals court reversed the judge’s decision.
Tuesday’s ruling included a dissenting opinion by Justice Carla Wong McMillian, another Republican appointee, who wrote that the legal question of “whether an attorney can be disqualified based on the appearance of impropriety alone” affects “every single active lawyer in the State of Georgia.” She added that prior court rulings were in conflict on the matter and needed to be resolved.
Trump Administration: Live Updates
Updated
September 18, 2025
Trump pressures broadcasters over critical coverage, escalating an attack on speech.
Here’s how broadcasters can keep or lose their licenses.
11 elected officials are arrested while trying to access N.Y.C. ICE facility.
The ruling is the latest in a series of blows to Ms. Willis, a Democrat who rocketed to national prominence by taking the remarkable step of indicting a former president in a state criminal court. Months after the indictment, defense lawyers brought to light her romantic relationship with her fellow prosecutor, Nathan Wade, arguing that it constituted a conflict of interest.
Defense attorneys accused Ms. Willis of “self-dealing” because she took a number of vacations with Mr. Wade after hiring him, while using public funds to pay him more than $650,000 for his work on the case.
“While I disagree with the decision of the Georgia Court of Appeals and the Georgia Supreme Court’s divided decision not to review it, I respect the legal process and the courts,” Ms. Willis said in an emailed statement on Tuesday. “Accordingly, my office will make the case file and evidence available to the Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council for use in the ongoing litigation. I hope that whoever is assigned to handle the case will have the courage to do what the evidence and the law demand.”
Mr. Trump sounded a note of vindication in a social media post on Tuesday that also attacked Ms. Willis and Mr. Wade. He wrote of their “torrid ‘love’ affair,” and accused them of lying under oath in court hearings.
He also accused them of unjustly prosecuting him, and, as he has done before, leveled the same accusation against Jack Smith, the former special counsel who oversaw two federal inquiries into and indictments of Mr. Trump. Those investigations focused on whether Mr. Trump mishandled classified documents after he left office, as well as his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. Both were dropped after Mr. Trump won the 2024 election. “The Prosecutorial Weaponization of DONALD J. TRUMP had no limits,” Mr. Trump wrote. “They went after their Political Opponent at levels never seen before, and LOST. They are now CRIMINALS who will hopefully pay serious consequences for their illegal actions.”
Mr. Smith is currently the subject of an investigation by the Office of Special Counsel. Senator Tom Cotton, Republican of Arkansas, persuaded the office to begin the inquiry, and has claimed that Mr. Smith’s cases may have been efforts to sway the 2024 election. Mr. Smith’s lawyers have called the ethics complaint “imaginary and unfounded.”
The Justice Department is also investigating Letitia James, the New York attorney general, who won a civil fraud case against Mr. Trump last year only to see an appellate court later throw out a half-billion-dollar judgment.
Some observers wonder whether Ms. Willis will eventually be targeted as well.
Steve Sadow, the lead counsel for Mr. Trump in the case, said that the Georgia Supreme Court had ruled correctly, echoing the president’s position that he had been unjustly targeted in an act of politically motivated “lawfare.”
“Willis’ misconduct during the investigation and prosecution of President Trump was egregious and she deserved nothing less than disqualification,” Mr. Sadow said in a statement. “This proper decision should bring an end to the wrongful political, lawfare persecutions of the President.”
In a statement on Tuesday, Mr. Skandalakis, the lawyer tasked with reassigning the case, said that with the disqualification of Ms. Willis and her office, the search for a new prosecutor “will begin today.”
Five states brought charges related to the Trump campaign’s handling of the 2020 election, but the Georgia ruling on Tuesday was only the latest positive news for the president’s side. A week ago, a Michigan judge threw out criminal cases against 15 people who acted as fake 2020 Trump electors in that state, saying prosecutors there had not established that there had been any intent to commit fraud.
In May, a judge ordered Arizona prosecutors to send an electors case in that state back to a grand jury; the prosecutors have appealed that decision. A case in Nevada has been slowed by challenges over its venue, while a fifth elections case, against three Trump campaign aides and advisers, is pending in Wisconsin.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS:
Richard Fausset, a Times reporter based in Atlanta, writes about the American South, focusing on politics, culture, race, poverty and criminal justice.
Danny Hakim is a reporter on the Investigations team at The Times, focused primarily on politics.
A version of this article appears in print on Sept. 17, 2025, Section A, Page 17 of the New York edition with the headline: District Attorney Loses Bid to Continue Prosecuting Case Against Trump in Georgia .
Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe
See more on: U.S. Politics, Fani Willis, Donald Trump
The Latest on the Trump Administration:
- Vaccine Committee: An influential federal committee that recommends vaccine policies, formed by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the health secretary, is set to meet to review important immunizationsthat have long been in use.
- Health Bloc: New York and several other Northeastern states are forging a regional public health coalition to issue vaccine recommendations and coordinate public health efforts in a rebuke to the Trump administration’s shifts on health policy. The effort is similar to the West Coast Health Alliance.
- New Civics Effort: The Trump administration announced the launch of a civics education coalition that includes the Education Department and more than 40 partner groups, all of which are closely aligned with President Trump’s Make America Great Again movement.
- No Data, No Problem: A pattern of getting rid of statistics has emerged that echoes the president’s first term, when he suggested if the nation stopped testing for Covid, it would have few cases.
- Trump Hails Kimmel Suspension: Trump has accused Britain of mounting a crackdown on political expression. But he welcomed the ABC network’s suspension of Jimmy Kimmel.
- Trump’s U.K. Visit: The president and the first lady are being hosted by King Charles III and Queen Camilla. Here’s what to know.
