BIG NEWS: Georgia Judge Scott McAfee Issues Blockbuster Decision - DA Fani Willis Found GUILTY - Ordered to Pay MASSIVE Fine to Trump
ATLANTA, Ga. — June 23, 2026
Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee issued a certificate of immediate review Wednesday, allowing former President Donald Trump and eight co-defendants to seek an appeal of the order that rejected efforts to disqualify District Attorney Fani Willis from the case.
Under Georgia law, the Georgia Court of Appeals has 45 days to decide whether to hear the appeal from the March 15 order. The appellate court is not required to accept the case.
Last week, Judge McAfee declined to disqualify Willis from leading the prosecution but criticized her conduct. He ruled that either Willis or her former lead prosecutor, Nathan Wade, would need to step aside to address concerns about their relationship. Wade resigned shortly after the ruling.
In his decision, McAfee noted an “odor of mendacity” surrounding Willis’s testimony about the nature and timing of her relationship with Wade. While he did not find evidence of perjury or financial misconduct sufficient to disqualify her, the judge described her actions as troubling and raised questions about her credibility during the disqualification hearing.
Legal experts have discussed the possibility of challenges to Willis’s law license through the State Bar of Georgia. Some analysts believe that without stronger evidence of misconduct, such challenges are unlikely to succeed. Others note that the judge’s criticism could fuel further scrutiny from regulators or the public, even if formal discipline does not result.
The underlying case involves racketeering and other charges against Trump and 18 co-defendants related to efforts to challenge the 2020 presidential election results in Georgia. Trump has pleaded not guilty to all counts.
Willis has denied that her personal relationship with Wade influenced the handling or merits of the case against Trump and his co-defendants. The disqualification motion originated from allegations raised by attorneys for co-defendant Mike Roman.
The certificate of immediate review allows the defendants to ask the Court of Appeals to review McAfee’s denial of disqualification before the case proceeds further in the trial court. If the appellate court accepts the appeal, it could delay proceedings while the higher court considers the issues raised.
The developments come as the case continues to draw significant public and legal attention. Willis’s office has faced ongoing questions about the conduct of the prosecution team and the management of the high-profile matter. The situation has also prompted broader discussion about prosecutorial ethics and the standards applied to high-profile cases involving political figures.
The outcome of any appeal could significantly affect the timeline and future direction of the prosecution. Legal observers continue to monitor developments closely as the case moves through the appellate process. The disqualification issue has become a central point of contention in what remains one of the most closely watched legal proceedings involving a former president.
Justice Dept. Sides With Catholic Nuns Fighting N.Y. Trans Mandate
WASHINGTON, D.C. — June 22, 2026
The Justice Department announced plans to intervene in a lawsuit filed by the Dominican Sisters of Hawthorne, a Catholic religious order, challenging a New York law that prohibits discrimination in nursing homes based on sexual orientation, gender identity, or HIV status.
The department filed a Complaint-in-Intervention supporting the nuns, who operate Rosary Hill Home, a nursing facility providing palliative care to indigent cancer patients. The sisters argue that the 2024 law conflicts with their religious beliefs regarding biological sex and the care they provide.
The New York law requires nursing homes to house residents and provide access to bathrooms based on a person’s gender identity rather than biological sex. Facilities must also use residents’ preferred pronouns and follow state training materials that direct staff to affirm residents’ sexual orientation and gender identity. The guidance further instructs facilities to accommodate requests for extramarital relationships unless prohibited by facility-wide policy.
Nursing homes that fail to comply face fines of up to $2,000 for a first violation and up to $5,000 for repeat violations. Willful violations of public health law can result in fines up to $10,000 or up to one year in prison, or both.
The DOJ’s complaint alleges that the law violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause by imposing requirements on religious facilities that conflict with their beliefs while potentially treating non-religious facilities differently. The department argues that Catholic teaching holds biological sex as immutable and that referring to individuals by another sex constitutes religiously prohibited lying. The nuns house patients in single-sex rooms based on biological sex and refer to them using pronouns reflecting biological sex.
U.S. Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon stated that states cannot require Americans to abandon their religious beliefs in the name of gender ideology. She noted that the sisters have provided free care for more than 125 years and should not be forced to choose between their faith and their license to operate.
The intervention comes amid broader debates over the balance between anti-discrimination laws and religious liberty protections in healthcare and long-term care settings. The case is expected to test the application of state gender identity requirements to faith-based institutions. Legal observers are monitoring how courts will weigh religious exemptions against state anti-discrimination mandates in similar disputes nationwide.
May you like
The outcome could influence policies in other states considering comparable requirements for long-term care facilities. Dhillon has also been involved in other Justice Department efforts, including reviews of voter roll compliance with federal laws in multiple states. The intervention represents one of the first major actions by the department in defense of religious liberty in healthcare settings under the current administration.
