Listen to the article
In a significant legal development, the head of Georgia’s Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council has challenged the constitutionality of a state law being used by former President Donald Trump and other defendants to seek nearly $17 million in legal fees from Fulton County.
Pete Skandalakis, the council’s Executive Director who now oversees the Georgia election interference case, filed court documents Wednesday arguing that the law contains “serious and potentially unconstitutional deficiencies.” His filing comes as Trump alone seeks more than $6.2 million in reimbursement for his defense costs.
The controversial law, passed by Georgia legislators last year, allows defendants to recover “all reasonable attorney’s fees and costs” if a prosecutor is disqualified for improper conduct and the case is subsequently dismissed. Under the law, these costs would be paid directly from the prosecutor’s office budget.
“The law is probably unconstitutional because it leaves county governments — entities that are politically and practically separate from the elected District Attorney — responsible for paying costs that do not involve them, without any legal recourse to contest that responsibility,” Skandalakis wrote. He contends this arrangement denies counties due process rights guaranteed under both the U.S. and Georgia constitutions.
The legal drama began in August 2023 when Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis secured indictments against Trump and 18 others, using Georgia’s anti-racketeering statute to allege they participated in a coordinated scheme to overturn the state’s 2020 presidential election results.
The case took a dramatic turn when defense attorneys revealed that Willis had engaged in a romantic relationship with Nathan Wade, the special prosecutor she hired to lead the prosecution. While Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee initially allowed Willis to remain on the case if Wade resigned, the Georgia Court of Appeals later removed her entirely, citing an “appearance of impropriety.” The Georgia Supreme Court subsequently declined to hear Willis’ appeal.
Skandalakis, who took over the case late last year, dismissed the charges in November. Following the dismissal, Trump and other defendants filed for reimbursement under the new law.
In his filing, Skandalakis raises several technical objections to the law’s application. He argues that the statute requires a finding of actual “improper conduct,” whereas the appeals court only found an “appearance of impropriety” — a distinction he considers legally significant.
Skandalakis also questions what constitutes “reasonable” attorney fees under the law. He points to much lower rates paid to attorneys who step in when district attorneys have conflicts — $66.57 and $125 per hour, respectively — which pale in comparison to the rates charged by some defense lawyers in the election case.
The Fulton County District Attorney’s office has declined to comment on Skandalakis’ filing, though Willis had previously requested to be heard regarding any claims for fees and costs.
Trump’s lead attorney in Georgia, Steve Sadow, dismissed Skandalakis’ arguments, stating in an email that the law is constitutional and “Mr. Skandalakis’ contentions are simply wrong.”
This dispute highlights the unusual and potentially far-reaching consequences of Georgia’s new law, which could expose prosecutor’s offices to substantial financial liabilities. Legal experts are watching closely, as the outcome could influence how similar cases are handled nationwide and potentially impact prosecutorial decision-making in politically sensitive cases.
The judge overseeing the case has not yet ruled on the fee requests or Skandalakis’ constitutional concerns.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
8 Comments
The idea of defendants being able to recoup millions in legal fees from county budgets, even in cases where they were not directly involved, seems problematic. I’m glad to see this issue being challenged and hope the courts can provide clarity and a balanced solution.
This is a complex issue with valid arguments on both sides. While the law may have been intended to deter prosecutorial misconduct, the potential for abuse and unfair burdens on local governments is worrying. I hope the courts thoroughly examine the constitutionality of this statute.
Absolutely, the courts will need to carefully weigh the merits and potential consequences of this law. Maintaining a fair and impartial justice system should be the primary concern, not political or financial considerations.
The argument that the law places unfair financial burdens on entities separate from the elected prosecutor seems valid. Allowing defendants to recover millions in fees directly from county budgets could set a problematic precedent. This bears close scrutiny to ensure fairness and balance of powers.
Agreed, the potential constitutional issues with this law are concerning. Imposing substantial financial penalties on county governments that aren’t directly involved in a case seems like an overreach that could have far-reaching consequences.
This is an interesting legal development regarding the controversial Georgia election law. It raises important questions about the constitutionality of holding prosecutors and county governments financially liable for costs in cases where they are disqualified. I’m curious to see how this plays out.
This is a complex and politically charged situation, but it’s important to focus on the legal principles at stake. The potential constitutional issues raised by the Georgia law deserve thorough examination to ensure the fairness and integrity of the judicial process.
It’s good to see the head of the Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council taking a critical look at this law and highlighting its potential flaws. Regardless of political affiliation, the integrity and fairness of the legal system should be the top priority.