The Georgia Court of Appeals removed Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis from the election interference case against president-elect Donald Trump and 18 others on Thursday over Willis’ previously undisclosed relationship with special prosecutor Nathan Wade. The appeals court agreed with the trial court that the relationship created an “appearance of impropriety,” and found that it was necessary to remove Willis from the case entirely to “restore public confidence.”

Willis hired Wade to lead the Trump prosecution in November 2021. Trump co-defendant Michael Roman, a former White House aide, uncovered a previous relationship between Willis and Wade in January 2024, alleging it created a conflict of interest in the case. Willis and Wade confirmed their relationship the following month, though the two claimed it began after Wade’s hiring.

According to the defense, Wade covered between $12,000 and $15,000 in expenses for Willis between October 2022 and May 2023 while the two took trips together. However, Willis testified that she reimbursed Wade in cash or similar expenses, and a trial court found that the expenditures did not influence the Trump prosecution.

Trial court Judge Scott McAfee previously refused to disqualify Willis from the case, finding that despite a “significant appearance of impropriety,” there was insufficient evidence of a conflict of interest. Judge McAfee therefore gave the District Attorney’s office the option of stepping aside and referring the prosecution elsewhere or having Wade withdraw.

Although the appeals court did not consider a conflict of interest, it reasoned:

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. While we recognize that an appearance of impropriety generally is not enough to support disqualification, this is the rare case in which disqualification is mandated and no other remedy will suffice to restore public confidence in the integrity of these proceedings.

However, appeals court Judge Benjamin A. Land stressed in his dissent that the court lacks authority to remove a prosecutor when there is no finding of a conflict of interest:

Where, as here, a prosecutor has no actual conflict of interest and the trial court, based on the evidence presented to it, rejects the allegations of actual impropriety, we have no authority to reverse the trial court’s denial of a motion to disqualify. None. Even where there is an appearance of impropriety. Our binding precedent and the doctrine of stare decisis require our restraint and do not permit us to impose a different remedy than the one chosen by the trial court simply because we might see the matter differently…

Trump and his co-defendants face charges relating to an alleged election interference scheme which prosecutors say sought to sway the 2020 US presidential election in Georgia. Federal special prosecutor Jack Smith dropped his two prosecutions against Trump last month after the former president emerged victorious in this year’s presidential election.