When a prosecutor gets tossed off a case, you might assume the story ends there. In Georgia, it does not. The latest twist in the dismissed Trump RICO prosecution is a narrower, procedural question with a very real consequence: who gets to argue about the money when defendants seek to claw back legal fees.
On Monday, Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee ruled that Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis cannot participate in litigation over legal fees tied to the now-dismissed racketeering case against President Donald Trump and his co-defendants. The reason was straightforward. Because Willis was already, in McAfee’s words, “wholly disqualified” from the prosecution, she cannot re-enter the case to influence the fight over reimbursement.
The fee dispute remains
The defendants are seeking reimbursement under a Georgia law passed in 2025 that allows defendants to pursue compensation in cases where prosecutors are disqualified. In this dispute, the total amount sought is described as $16.8 million for Trump and his co-defendants. Trump’s portion, according to the filings referenced in coverage of the case, is more than $6.2 million in attorney fees and related costs.
Disqualification is not just a dramatic headline. It can have follow-on consequences. If the statute applies, what was a criminal prosecution can turn into a separate legal battle over public funds, and over which public office gets to speak for them in court.
Why Willis was blocked
McAfee’s order drew a bright line: Willis is out of the prosecution, so she is out of this reimbursement fight. McAfee noted Fulton County could be involved because any award would come from the county’s budget.
Willis, through her lawyers, argued she should have a voice because the fees could come from the budget that funds her office. In one court filing, her attorneys warned that excluding her would violate “basic fundamental notions of due process” by denying her the chance to be heard or contest the reasonableness of the requested fees.
Trump’s lead attorney, Steve Sadow, applauded the ruling, saying McAfee “has properly denied DA Willis’ motion to intervene” because her disqualification bars further participation by Willis and her office.
How the case got here
Willis brought the original prosecution in August 2023, charging Trump and 18 co-defendants in a sweeping Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations case tied to alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election results in Georgia. Over time, the case was whittled down through plea deals and dismissed charges.
The pivotal break came in 2024, when the Georgia Court of Appeals disqualified Willis after finding that her undisclosed romantic relationship with lead prosecutor Nathan Wade created a conflict of interest. That ruling moved control of the matter to the Georgia Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council.
The council’s director, Peter Skandalakis, ultimately sought dismissal. McAfee granted that request. Skandalakis explained the decision this way: “In my professional judgment, the citizens of Georgia are not served by pursuing this case in full for another five to ten years.”
What this fight really tests
It is easy to treat this as inside-baseball litigation, the kind only lawyers track. But the fee dispute puts a practical civics question on the table: when a prosecutor is disqualified and defendants seek reimbursement, who represents the government side, and what process is owed before money is paid out?
One way to read McAfee’s ruling is as a strict application of roles. The prosecutor who was removed from the case does not get to re-enter to shape the next phase. At the same time, the county may have to decide whether to take up the defense of its budget and, if so, how aggressively to challenge what the defendants claim is reasonable.
What to watch next
- Who speaks for the county: If Fulton County is the proper party, its approach will matter more than Willis’ desire to intervene.
- How “reasonable” fees are evaluated: Even if reimbursement is permitted, the amount can be disputed, and fee litigation often turns on billing rates, scope, and necessity.
- The ripple effect: A 2025 statute plus a high-profile disqualification creates a clear roadmap for similar claims in future cases.
Fox News Digital reported it reached out to the White House for comment.