November 25, 2024
Supreme Court immunity ruling forces Jack Smith to drop Trump prosecutions
Special counsel abandons January 6 and classified documents cases after ruling shields presidential acts
📜Constitutional Law👨⚖️Judicial Review🏛️Government
Roberts remanded the January 6 case to Judge Chutkan to sort each allegation as official or unofficial before trial
Roberts barred using official-act evidence to prove intent — eliminating key evidence Smith had built his case around
Smith dismissed both federal cases on November 25, 2024, after Trump won re-election
Smith stated dismissals were without prejudice and not based on case merits
Judge Aileen Cannon had already dismissed the Florida classified documents case in July 2024 on appointment grounds
DOJ longstanding policy prohibits federal prosecution of a sitting president
The Georgia state RICO case against Trump remained active but complicated by Trump presidency
📜Constitutional Law👨⚖️Judicial Review🏛️Government
People, bills, and sources
Jack Smith
Special Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice
Tanya Chutkan
U.S. District Judge, D.C.
Aileen Cannon
U.S. District Judge, Southern District of Florida
Fani Willis
Fulton County District Attorney
Jeffrey Rosen
Acting Attorney General under Trump
Mike Pence
Vice President under Trump
What you can do
1
research
Understand that a without-prejudice dismissal is not an acquittal — track what happens in January 2029
Without-prejudice dismissals preserve the possibility of future prosecution. Reading the dismissal motions directly shows exactly what legal doors Smith left open and what would need to happen for charges to be refiled.
A case dismissed without prejudice is not an acquittal — Smith stated the dismissals were on policy grounds, not the merits, meaning charges could theoretically be refiled against Trump after he leaves office in January 2029. Read Smith's dismissal motions at CourtListener.com to see the exact language he used and the legal reasoning he gave. Note that prosecutors are under no obligation to refile — but the legal option remains open. Understanding this distinction helps citizens evaluate news coverage that characterizes the dismissals as either vindication or a temporary postponement of accountability.
2
civic action
Contact your representatives to demand the OLC no-prosecution policy be replaced by statute
The OLC memo is what ended two federal criminal cases against a sitting president. Congressional action to replace it with a statute would put this consequential policy in public hands rather than executive ones.
The DOJ policy preventing prosecution of a sitting president is not a law passed by Congress but an internal executive branch memo. Citizens can contact their representatives through house.gov to demand hearings on whether it should be codified into statute. Ask your representative: Do you support legislation that would require courts — not executive branch memos — to determine whether a sitting president can be criminally prosecuted? Note whether your representative is on the House Judiciary Committee, which has direct oversight authority over DOJ policy.
3
research
Track the Georgia state RICO case independently of federal developments
Federal and state prosecutions are legally independent. A federal dismissal does not affect state charges, and a state conviction cannot be pardoned by the president. Tracking the Georgia case separately is the clearest way to see what accountability remains available.
State prosecutors operate under separate systems; track the Georgia state RICO case at the Fulton County Superior Court clerk's website at fultoncountyga.gov to see how state charges proceed independently of federal dismissals. Search for the Trump case docket to see the current status of all remaining defendants, any plea deals, and any trial scheduling orders. The federal dismissals have no legal effect on the Georgia case — they are entirely separate proceedings. Following both tracks simultaneously shows how state and federal accountability mechanisms interact and diverge.