Donald Trump remains a convicted felon under New York law, but every other criminal case against him has been dismissed, and he serves as president while appealing the one conviction that stands. On the civil side, a $5 million and an $83.3 million defamation judgment against him have been affirmed on appeal, and a New York business fraud finding survives even though the nearly half-billion-dollar penalty was thrown out. His second administration, meanwhile, has been sued more than 750 times. This is the state of Donald Trump’s legal cases as of mid-2026.
Criminal Cases at a Glance
Four criminal prosecutions were pending against Trump in 2024. Only one produced a conviction, and none produced a prison sentence.
- New York (hush money): convicted on 34 felony counts; sentenced to unconditional discharge; appeals pending.
- Federal (classified documents): dismissed by the trial judge; appeal dropped after the 2024 election.
- Federal (2020 election interference): dismissed on the special counsel’s motion after Trump won the election.
- Georgia (election racketeering): dismissed in November 2025 after the district attorney was disqualified.
The New York Hush Money Conviction
On May 30, 2024, a Manhattan jury found Trump guilty on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. The charges arose from how Trump recorded reimbursements to attorney Michael Cohen for a $130,000 payment made to Stormy Daniels in October 2016 to buy her silence about an alleged sexual encounter. Trump logged the reimbursements as legal expenses. He pleaded not guilty and called the prosecution politically motivated.1BBC News. Trump Sentenced to Unconditional Discharge in Hush-Money Case
Justice Juan Merchan sentenced Trump on January 10, 2025, to an unconditional discharge on all counts. No jail time, no fine, no probation. Merchan described it as the “only lawful sentence” that would preserve the jury’s verdict without encroaching on the powers of the presidency.2NPR. Trump Sentenced to Unconditional Discharge in New York The Supreme Court had declined to block the sentencing the night before.3CBS News. Trump Sentencing in New York Hush Money Case
Two appeals are moving in parallel. In state court, a direct appeal of the verdict is pending. In federal court, Trump’s lawyers are trying to move the case out of state jurisdiction, arguing that the Supreme Court’s July 2024 presidential immunity ruling means the trial improperly admitted evidence of official acts. A federal judge denied that removal request in September 2025. The Second Circuit ordered reconsideration in November 2025, finding the judge had not adequately weighed the immunity questions. As of February 2026, Judge Alvin Hellerstein was reconsidering the matter and appeared skeptical of Trump’s arguments, accusing his team of seeking “two bites at the apple.”4Politico. Donald Trump Hush Money Conviction5Courthouse News Service. New York Judge Excoriates Trump’s Timing in Bid to Scrap Hush Money Conviction
The Federal Cases Ended Without Trial
Special Counsel Jack Smith was appointed in November 2022 to investigate two matters: Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election, and his retention of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago. Neither reached trial.
Classified Documents
U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the documents case on July 15, 2024, in a 93-page ruling. She concluded that Smith’s appointment violated the Appointments Clause because it lacked explicit statutory authorization from Congress, citing a concurring opinion from Justice Clarence Thomas. Her order did not address the merits of the underlying allegations.6CNN. Classified Documents Case Against Trump Dismissed7BBC News. Judge Dismisses Trump Classified Documents Case
Smith appealed, arguing the dismissal departed from the uniform conclusion of prior courts. After Trump won the 2024 election, the Justice Department asked the Eleventh Circuit to drop the appeal against Trump’s co-defendants Waltine Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira. The appeals court granted that request in February 2025 in a one-line order.8CBS News. Trump Documents Case Nauta De Oliveira Dismissed
2020 Election Interference
A federal grand jury in Washington, D.C., had charged Trump in August 2023 with four felony counts tied to efforts to overturn the 2020 election. After the Supreme Court’s immunity decision forced a superseding indictment based on non-immunized conduct, Smith moved on November 25, 2024, to dismiss the case entirely, citing the longstanding Justice Department policy that a sitting president cannot be prosecuted.9U.S. Department of Justice. Report of Special Counsel Smith, Volume One
Smith submitted his final report to the Attorney General on January 7, 2025, concluding that sufficient evidence existed to charge Trump in both investigations. After Trump took office, the administration fired Smith and his staff. A judge blocked release of the second volume of Smith’s report, on the documents case, ruling that release would cause irreparable damage. Smith testified before the House Judiciary Committee for eight hours in December 2025.10BBC News. Jack Smith Final Report
The Georgia RICO Case Was Dismissed
Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis had secured a 41-count indictment in August 2023 against Trump and 18 co-defendants under Georgia’s racketeering statute for efforts to overturn the 2020 election results in the state. The case collapsed over the next two years.
A Georgia appeals court disqualified Willis in December 2024 after finding she had an undisclosed romantic relationship with Nathan Wade, the special prosecutor she hired to lead the case. The Georgia Supreme Court declined to hear her appeal of that removal in September 2025.11CNN. Trump Election Interference Case Continues in Georgia
Peter Skandalakis, head of the Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council of Georgia, took over the case after being unable to find another prosecutor willing to accept it. After reviewing 101 boxes of documents and an eight-terabyte hard drive, he moved in November 2025 to dismiss all charges. Skandalakis cited constitutional questions about immunity and the Supremacy Clause, expressed doubt that the alleged acts could sustain a RICO charge, and argued that Georgia’s citizens would not be served by pursuing the case for another five to ten years. Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee granted the dismissal.12JURIST. Georgia Prosecutor Drops Election Racketeering Case Against Trump A Georgia Senate committee has since opened an investigation into Willis’s conduct.13Axios. Fani Willis Georgia Senate Investigation
The Supreme Court Immunity Ruling Shaped Every Case
In Trump v. United States, decided July 1, 2024, the Supreme Court held 6-3 that former presidents possess immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts. The ruling was the first of its kind.14SCOTUSblog. Justices Rule Trump Has Some Immunity From Prosecution
It established three tiers:
- Absolute immunity for actions within a president’s “conclusive and preclusive” constitutional authority, such as appointing and removing executive officials.
- Presumptive immunity for other official acts. Prosecutors can overcome the presumption only by showing prosecution would pose no danger of intruding on executive authority.
- No immunity for unofficial acts.
The Court also barred inquiries into a president’s motives when sorting official from unofficial conduct, and prohibited prosecutors from using evidence of immune official acts to prove other charges. The decision sent the election interference case back for the trial court to categorize specific allegations, but that exercise became moot when Smith dropped the case after the election.15Supreme Court of the United States. Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. ___ (2024)
Civil Judgments Still Stand
The New York Business Fraud Case
New York Attorney General Letitia James brought a civil fraud action alleging Trump and the Trump Organization inflated the value of real estate assets to secure favorable loan terms. Manhattan Supreme Court Judge Arthur Engoron found the defendants liable, ordered disgorgement of roughly $464.6 million including prejudgment interest, and barred Trump from doing business in New York for three years.16Justia. People v Trump, 2025 NY Slip Op 04756
On August 21, 2025, the Appellate Division upheld the core finding that Trump committed business fraud but threw out the financial penalties in their entirety, ruling that the disgorgement order was an “excessive fine” under the Eighth Amendment. The court affirmed the restrictions on Trump Organization business practices as “well-crafted.” Attorney General James appealed to the New York Court of Appeals in June 2026, seeking to restore the financial penalties.17CNBC. Trump New York Appeal James Fraud
The E. Jean Carroll Verdicts
Writer E. Jean Carroll brought two lawsuits against Trump. The first trial jury found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation and awarded Carroll roughly $5 million. The second trial jury, in January 2024, awarded her $83.3 million in defamation damages, including $65 million in punitive damages.18Courthouse News Service. No En Banc in Trump Appeals of E. Jean Carroll Verdict
Trump appealed both verdicts, arguing presidential immunity and seeking to substitute the United States as the defendant. The Second Circuit affirmed both. A panel affirmed the first trial’s outcome in June 2025. In April 2026, the appeals court affirmed the $83.3 million judgment and denied Trump’s petitions for en banc rehearing, holding that presidential immunity is waivable and that Trump had waived it.18Courthouse News Service. No En Banc in Trump Appeals of E. Jean Carroll Verdict
January 6 Pardons Erased the Related Prosecutions
On January 20, 2025, Trump issued a proclamation granting clemency to everyone charged or convicted in connection with the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack. He commuted the sentences of 14 named individuals — including Oath Keepers leader Stewart Rhodes and several Proud Boys members convicted of seditious conspiracy — to time served, and granted “full, complete and unconditional” pardons to all others. He directed the Attorney General to seek dismissal of all pending indictments.19The White House. Granting Pardons and Commutation of Sentences for Certain Offenses Relating to the Events at or Near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021
Trump described individual review of the roughly 1,500 cases as too cumbersome and opted for blanket clemency. An NPR investigation found that dozens of the pardoned defendants had extensive prior criminal histories, including convictions for rape, manslaughter, domestic violence, and the production of child sexual abuse material. Several remained in custody on separate charges unrelated to January 6.20NPR. Donald Trump Jan. 6 Pardons
Lawsuits Against the Second Trump Administration
Trump’s personal criminal and civil exposure is one story. His administration’s exposure is another, and it is enormous. By June 2026, the administration had been sued more than 750 times since taking office, according to a New York Times tracker. Of 172 cases with a final decision, plaintiffs had won 67, 96 had been dismissed, and 7 ended in administration victories. Another 170 active cases involved policies that courts had halted. Thirty-one cases had reached the Supreme Court, six of them pending.21New York Times. Trump Administration Lawsuits A separate tracker maintained by Just Security counted 803 legal challenges as of May 2026, with 262 resulting in some plaintiff victory and 360 awaiting a ruling.22Just Security. Tracker: Litigation and Legal Challenges to the Trump Administration
Birthright Citizenship
Trump signed Executive Order 14160 on January 20, 2025, seeking to deny automatic citizenship to children born in the United States to parents who were in the country illegally or on temporary visas, provided the father was not a citizen or lawful permanent resident.23AILA. President Trump Signs Executive Order Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship The order never took effect. Federal judges in New Hampshire, Washington, Massachusetts, and Maryland blocked it, and a Ninth Circuit panel called it contrary to “the plain language of the Fourteenth Amendment.”24SCOTUSblog. Supreme Court Does Not Act on Trump’s Attempt to End Birthright Citizenship, for Now
The administration’s appeal produced a landmark procedural ruling. On June 27, 2025, in Trump v. CASA, Inc., the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that federal courts generally lack authority to issue universal or nationwide injunctions. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, found such injunctions had no precedent in the founding-era equity tradition. The ruling did not address whether the birthright citizenship order is itself constitutional. That question is pending in Trump v. Barbara (No. 25-365), argued April 1, 2026.25SCOTUSblog. Supreme Court Sides With Trump Administration on Nationwide Injunctions in Birthright Citizenship Case26SCOTUSblog. Trump v. Barbara
Alien Enemies Act Deportations
On March 14, 2025, Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act, a 1798 wartime statute, declaring an “invasion” by the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua and authorizing the deportation of Venezuelan nationals to CECOT in El Salvador. The ACLU sued the next day. Chief Judge James Boasberg issued a temporary restraining order blocking the flights and ordering any planes already airborne to turn back. Three flights nevertheless landed in El Salvador that day. In April 2025, Judge Boasberg found probable cause to hold the administration in criminal contempt for violating his order.27ACLU. Trump’s Deportation Flights Under the Alien Enemies Act
The Supreme Court vacated the lower court’s restraining orders in Trump v. J.G.G., ruling that challenges to removals under the Act must be brought as habeas petitions in the district where detainees are held. All nine justices agreed, though, that individuals subject to removal under the Act are entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard before deportation.28Supreme Court of the United States. Trump v. J.G.G., No. 24A931
Executive Orders Against Law Firms
Beginning in March 2025, the administration issued executive orders targeting specific law firms with suspension of security clearances, termination of government contracts, and restricted access to federal buildings. Firms named included Perkins Coie, Paul Weiss, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, Susman Godfrey, and Covington & Burling.29American Bar Association. Big Law Target of Trump Executive Orders Four firms challenged the orders in federal court and won. Judge Beryl Howell declared the Perkins Coie order unconstitutional on May 2, 2025, calling it an “unprecedented attack” on judicial foundations. Judge John Bates declared the Jenner & Block order “null and void” on May 23. The rulings found violations of the First Amendment, due process, and the right to counsel. Government appeals were consolidated in the D.C. Circuit, with oral arguments scheduled for May 14, 2026.30NPR. Law Firms Sue Trump Paul Weiss and eight other firms instead settled, pledging roughly $900 million total in pro bono legal services to causes designated by the administration.31Bloomberg Law. Paul Weiss Deal With Trump Haunts Legal Industry One Year Later
Federal Workforce and DOGE
The Department of Government Efficiency, led by Elon Musk, has drawn extensive litigation over federal workforce reductions and agency restructuring. A 14-state coalition led by New Mexico sued in February 2025 arguing that Musk functions as a principal officer who requires Senate confirmation. Federal judges have temporarily blocked DOGE from accessing sensitive Treasury data and blocked the placement of over 2,000 USAID employees on leave. In September 2025, a district court denied the government’s motion to dismiss most claims in a case brought by the American Federation of Government Employees challenging the workforce dismantling. In a class action by terminated HHS employees, a court in January 2026 allowed claims to proceed against DOGE as an entity while dismissing claims against Musk personally.32Workers Legal Defense. DOGE Litigation Tracker
Emergency Docket at the Supreme Court
The Court heard at least 24 emergency docket cases involving the administration during its 2025 term and ruled in the government’s favor 20 times. Notable exceptions: the Court held in Trump v. Illinois that the president cannot federalize a state’s National Guard without meeting strict conditions under the Posse Comitatus Act, and it denied the administration’s attempt to stay a $2 billion reimbursement order to nonprofits whose funding had been cut. The only unanimous emergency ruling against the administration came in Margolin v. National Association of Immigration Judges, the sole instance in which Justices Thomas and Alito voted against the government.33SCOTUSblog. Looking Back at 2025: The Supreme Court and the Trump Administration