In a move that could effectively end the Georgia prosecution of Donald Trump and others, the Supreme Court of Georgia on Tuesday declined to take up Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis’ attempt to continue prosecuting the state election interference case.

Three state justices dissented from the refusal to consider the appeal, arguing that it presented an important issue worth resolving: whether a lawyer can be disqualified “based on the appearance of impropriety alone.”

While the denial keeps Willis and her office from overseeing the case, it could also effectively end it completely, or at least delay it even longer. When a prosecutor’s office in Georgia is disqualified, finding a new one falls to a state panel called the Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council of Georgia. As an example of how long that process can take and how it can affect the outcome, look at the situation of Georgia Lt. Gov. Burt Jones, whom Willis was disqualified from prosecuting after she hosted a fundraiser for a Democrat who later became Jones’ opponent in the 2022 election. After nearly two years, the Republican head of the panel said he would handle it himself. And then he announced he wouldn’t seek charges against Jones.

And the Jones matter involved just one person. Finding a new prosecutor to take on the complex case against Trump and several other defendants could prove difficult, to say nothing of how a new prosecutor would view the case. Either way, Trump himself would not be prosecuted while he is still in office. His two federal cases were dismissed following his 2024 election victory, and he is appealing his New York state conviction in the only one of his four criminal cases that went to trial before the election.

Like the state’s top court on Tuesday, a state appeals court panel was likewise divided last year when it ruled that Willis and her office should be disqualified from prosecuting the case against Trump and others for their allegedly criminal actions in trying to overturn the 2020 election that Trump lost to Joe Biden.

“After carefully considering the trial court’s findings in its order, we conclude that it erred by failing to disqualify DA Willis and her office,” the appeals court said of the prior ruling from the trial judge, Scott McAfee.

Trump and other defendants in the case had argued Willis improperly profited from the hiring of special prosecutor Nathan Wade, with whom she had a romantic relationship, and that it gave the elected district attorney an impermissible stake in the prosecution. McAfee said the defense failed to prove an actual conflict of interest but that the appearance of impropriety meant that either Willis (and her office) or Wade had to go. Wade resigned that same day.

“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,“ the appeals court said in the opinion by Judge Trenton Brown, who was joined by Judge Todd Markle.

A dissenting appeals court judge said the majority’s opinion was unsupported by law and called it particularly troubling that the majority interfered with the trial judge’s discretion. “Given the unique role of the trial court and the fact that it is the court which has broad discretion to impose a remedy that fits the situation as it finds it to be, we should resist the temptation to interfere with that discretion, including its chosen remedy, just because we happen to see things differently,” Judge Ben Land wrote.

Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration’s legal cases.

Jordan Rubin

Jordan Rubin is the Deadline: Legal Blog writer. He was a prosecutor for the New York County District Attorney’s Office in Manhattan and is the author of “Bizarro,” a book about the secret war on synthetic drugs. Before he joined BLN, he was a legal reporter for Bloomberg Law.

Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut issued an unsettling warning of sorts via social media on Monday, writing, “The murder of Charlie Kirk could have united Americans to confront political violence. Instead, Trump and his anti-democratic radicals look to be readying a campaign to destroy dissent.”

The senator soon after talked to Saagar Enjeti on “The Breaking Point” podcast, explaining that he’s “heartbroken” the country is not using the moment to come together and condemn political violence, adding“Instead, it looks as if President Trump and his allies are gearing up to potentially exploit this tragedy and use it as a means to do what they have been planning — to do what they have wanted to do for the entirety of their time in office — which is to try to use their control of the legal system to destroy, to obliterate the political opposition to Donald Trump.”

That might’ve sounded alarmist to some, but it wasn’t long before the White House bolstered Murphy’s concerns in dramatic fashion. The New York Times reported:

The report added that while the motive in Kirk’s slaying is still under investigation, and law enforcement officials have said that the suspected shooter acted alone, the president and several of his top allies “suggested that the suspect was part of a coordinated movement that was fomenting violence against conservatives, without presenting evidence that such a network existed.”

Trump and his team have been unsubtle in recent days about their vision. Hours after Kirk’s death, the president delivered Oval Office remarks in which the Republican not only lashed out at the left, he also vowed that his administration “will find each and every one of those who contributed to this atrocity, and to other political violence, including the organizations that fund it and support it.”

A few days later, Trump boasted to reporters“They’re already under major investigation. A lot of the people that you would traditionally say are on the left [are] already under investigation.”

This raised plenty of questions about who “they” might be and what kind of “investigations” are underway, but this was a sign of things to come — and on Monday, the White House’s campaign reached an extraordinary new level.

Deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, for example, promised to bring the resources of the federal government to bear against what he described as “terrorist networks,” adding that he believes there are liberal organizations that constitute “a vast domestic terror movement” that the administration intends to dismantle through a variety of federal agencies and departments.

Miller delivered those comments to JD Vance — the vice president was serving as the guest host of Kirk’s podcast — who proceeded to lash out at The Nation, a progressive magazine that he accused of falsely smearing Kirk after his death, before also targeting progressive megadonor George Soros.

Soon after, Trump told reporters that he might designate antifa as a “domestic terror organization” — an apparent impossibility given that antifa is made up of loosely affiliated anti-fascist activists, and there is no organized group by that name — before adding that he was also prepared to target “other” unnamed entities. As part of the same exchange, the president said he’d already spoken to Attorney General Pam Bondi about bringing racketeering charges against “some of the people you’ve been reading about.”

For her part, Bondi told ABC News soon after that “left-wing radicals” (note the plural) were responsible for Kirk’s death, adding that “they” will be held accountable.

Miller also told reporters that the Bondi would “find out” which liberal groups are “paying for violence.”

In case this isn’t obvious, the White House could be using this opportunity to lower the temperature, reduce tensions and avoid a potentially incendiary blame game. Instead, it’s pointing to a vast conspiracy that doesn’t appear to exist, using a shooting death as a pretense to launch a multifaceted federal campaign against political opponents of the president.

The New York Times noted in March that Trump and his “allies are aggressively attacking the players and machinery that power the left,” through “a series of highly partisan official actions.” Six months later, that problem is accelerating.

Steve Benen

Steve Benen is a producer for “The Rachel Maddow Show,” the editor of MaddowBlog and an BLN political contributor. He’s also the bestselling author of “Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans’ War on the Recent Past.”