On Thursday, a split Georgia Court of Appeals ruled to disqualify District Attorney Fani Willis from the racketeering case against President-elect Donald Trump, citing concerns over potential bias regarding her prosecutorial decisions.

Willis had previously admitted to a romantic involvement with Nathan Wade, a special counsel she hired on this case. Earlier in the year, Judge Scott McAfee had criticized Willis for “a tremendous lapse in judgment,” but opted to allow her to continue her role in the case.

Trump, along with eight other defendants facing prosecution, appealed McAfee’s ruling.

The appeal decision was split 2-1 in favor of removing Willis, casting doubt on the future of the case.

“After thoroughly reviewing the trial court’s findings, we believe it made an error by not disqualifying DA Willis and her office,” wrote Judge Trenton Brown in the court’s opinion. He pointed out that the earlier review failed to address the significant appearance of impropriety during Willis’s substantial pretrial decision-making.

Judge Todd Markle sided with Brown, while Judge Benjamin Land disagreed.

Steve Sadow, Trump’s legal representative in Georgia, praised the ruling as “well-reasoned,” asserting that it should conclude the proceedings.

“The Court recognized that Willis’ misconduct created a pervasive ‘odor of mendacity’ and an undeniable appearance of impropriety that can only be rectified by disqualifying her and her entire office,” Sadow stated. “This ruling effectively terminates a politically driven attack on the next President of the United States.”

A representative for another defendant, Michael Roman, also welcomed the ruling.

“We are delighted that the Court of Appeals concurred with Mr. Roman and the other defendants that Ms. Willis should be barred from proceeding with this case,” asserted Ashleigh Merchant, who was the first to push for Willis’s disqualification.

Willis’s office has not yet commented on the decision.

What Happens Next for Trump in Georgia?

This ruling casts doubt on when a trial might commence with a new prosecuting team for the 15 defendants who have not yet entered guilty pleas. The appeals court opted not to dismiss the original indictment.

Antony Michael Kreis, a law professor at Georgia State University monitoring the situation, noted that the state Supreme Court could still overturn this appeals ruling. Should it remain in place, the case would shift to another district attorney.

“The major questions now are whether the Georgia Supreme Court will intervene and what will happen if the disqualification holds,” Kreis evaluated.

“The decision to disqualify Fani Willis seems baseless, but there is a silver lining: the indictment against Trump is still valid,” asserted Norm Eisen, a legal analyst involved in the House committee that led Trump’s first impeachment. “This case should continue to be pursued rigorously. As demonstrated in New York, Trump is not above the law, and prosecutors should persist in holding him accountable.”

However, Clark Cunningham, another law professor at Georgia State, indicated that should the disqualification be maintained, Peter Skandalakis, head of the Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council of Georgia, could assign the case to another prosecutor.

Cunningham suggested Skandalakis might end up taking on the case himself, with the potential to dismiss the charges during Trump’s term in office.

“Initially, he would likely conclude that all charges against Trump should simply be put on hold for the duration of his second presidency,” Cunningham added.

If Willis’s disqualification stands, nearby District Attorneys in Cobb or DeKalb counties would be the most probable candidates to take on Trump’s case, according to Kreis, who expressed doubt over the possibility of Skandalakis dismissing the charges altogether.

“I’m not overly confident it will get reassigned, but there is a strong case to be made that an unelected attorney shouldn’t have the authority to nullify a Fulton County grand jury’s decision to pursue prosecution,” he shared. “It creates quite a conundrum.”

Sadow argues that the charges against Trump should be dropped due to his anticipated return to the presidency.

Federal judges have dismissed two indictments against Trump: one regarding alleged election interference and another concerning the mishandling of classified materials after his presidency ended, as prosecutors moved to dismiss the federal election case and withdrew an appeal related to the documents case due to…“`html

There is a long-standing policy from the Department of Justice that prevents the prosecution of a sitting president.

McAfee had delayed setting a trial date for the charges in Georgia while they awaited the results of the appeals. The replacement of Willis is likely to lead to a considerable postponement of the trial for any defendants involved.

Trump, alongside 18 others, has been indicted on accusations of attempting to undermine the results of the 2020 election. While four of the defendants have entered guilty pleas, Trump and the rest have maintained their not guilty pleas.

He faces charges related to a larger racketeering conspiracy and multiple counts regarding an alleged plot to replace the legitimate presidential electors of Joe Biden—who won the state of Georgia in 2020—with those who support Trump.

Others who sought to remove Willis from the case include Trump’s former campaign attorney, Rudy Giuliani; his ex-White House Chief of Staff, Mark Meadows; and former Assistant Attorney General, Jeffrey Clark.

Trump and the others claimed that Willis gained from fancy vacations taken with Wade after hiring him for the case.

There were four recorded trips taken by Willis and Wade together, as noted by the appeals court, including visits to Aruba, Belize, a cruise from Miami, and the Napa Valley in California. Their joint travel expenses amounted to approximately $15,000, according to court documents.

Both Willis and Wade testified at a heated hearing that she reimbursed him for her share of the expenses, although she mentioned she paid in cash and lacked documentation for the payments.

The appeals court determined that Willis “was not financially struggling” when their travels occurred and that the defendants did not provide evidence to suggest that their financial agreements “encouraged prolonging the case.”

“In fact, the record suggests the opposite,” said the appeals court. “Before the relationship was made public, the State asked for the trial to begin less than six months after the indictment.”

McAfee suggested that Wade should step down from the case while allowing Willis to stay in charge.

However, the appeals court concluded that the perception of impropriety would persist during the trial, and only Willis’s removal would “restore public trust in the integrity of these proceedings.”

“While it’s rare for DA Willis and her office to need disqualification due to a significant appearance of impropriety, we cannot conclude that the record supports the extreme penalty of dismissing the indictment based on the appropriate standards,” the court ruled.

In a dissenting opinion, Judge Land stated that “the law does not endorse the outcome reached by the majority.” Land also noted that McAfee had “wide discretion to apply a remedy suited to the situation.”

“In this case, the trial court specifically found that the appellants did not demonstrate that the district attorney faced any actual conflict of interest, did not show that she received any significant financial advantage from her relationship with Nathan Wade, and did not prove that their relationship impacted the case in any way,” Land wrote.

(This story is still developing. Please check back for further updates.)