A Georgia state appeals court on Thursday disqualified Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis from overseeing the high-profile election interference case against Donald Trump and others, citing an “appearance of impropriety” tied to her personal relationship with a special prosecutor.
The 2-1 ruling by the Georgia Court of Appeals marks a significant legal victory for Trump, the president-elect, as he continues to fend off various criminal cases. The court said Willis’ removal was necessary to “restore public confidence in the integrity of these proceedings.”
Willis’ office immediately signaled plans to appeal the decision to the Georgia Supreme Court. The ruling leaves the future of the case uncertain, with a new prosecutor yet to be appointed.
The investigation, launched in August 2023, accused Trump and 18 co-defendants of attempting to overturn his 2020 election loss in Georgia. Prosecutors had invoked Georgia’s anti-racketeering law to build the case, which included Trump’s January 2021 call to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger asking him to “find” enough votes to reverse the election outcome.
Four co-defendants have pleaded guilty, while Trump has consistently denied wrongdoing. The president-elect has labeled the case a politically motivated attack, telling Fox News Digital, “This case should not go any further. Everyone caught up in this deserves an apology.”
The disqualification stems from allegations that Willis maintained a romantic relationship with Nathan Wade, the special prosecutor she hired to lead the case. Defense attorneys alleged that the relationship, which Willis and Wade confirmed began in spring 2022, created conflicts of interest. They also accused Willis of benefiting financially from Wade, who allegedly covered lavish expenses during their relationship.
While both Willis and Wade denied any improper conduct affecting the case, the appeals court majority found the relationship created an unavoidable perception of bias.
“The remedy crafted by the trial court to prevent an ongoing appearance of impropriety did nothing to address the appearance of impropriety that existed at times when DA Willis was exercising her broad pretrial discretion about who to prosecute and what charges to bring,” Judge Trenton Brown wrote in the majority opinion, joined by Judge Todd Markle.
Steve Sadow, Trump’s lead attorney in Georgia, praised the court’s decision as “well-reasoned and just,” calling it a victory against what he described as a politically motivated prosecution.
“This decision puts an end to a biased effort to target the next president of the United States,” Sadow said in a statement.
Representatives for Willis did not immediately respond to requests for comment. However, speaking at a public event earlier this year, Willis defended her leadership and Wade’s qualifications, dismissing the allegations as personal attacks designed to derail the case.
In a dissenting opinion, Judge Benjamin Land argued that the majority overstepped its authority, noting trial court judges have broad discretion in managing cases. “Where a prosecutor has no actual conflict of interest, we have no authority to reverse the trial court’s decision,” Land wrote, citing decades of Georgia precedent.
The ruling requires Georgia’s Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council to appoint a new prosecutor to lead the sprawling case, which has already demanded extensive resources. The new prosecutor could choose to proceed with the charges, drop some of them, or dismiss the case entirely.
Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee, who presides over the case, had previously ruled that no actual conflict of interest warranted Willis’ removal, though he acknowledged the “appearance of impropriety.” McAfee allowed Willis to remain on the case in March 2023, but only after Wade resigned as special prosecutor.
The appeals court decision comes weeks after Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith dropped two federal cases against Trump and amid delays in a New York hush money case. Trump’s legal victories coincide with his transition to the White House after defeating Vice President Kamala Harris in November’s election.
The case’s disqualification of Willis raises questions about prosecutorial ethics and the challenges of pursuing legal action against a sitting or incoming president.
