Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr is asking the state Court of Appeals to immediately review a trial court’s decision that dismissed racketeering charges against 56 of 61 defendants accused of crimes related to protests against the Atlanta Public Safety Training Center.
What’s Happening: A Fulton County Superior Court judge dismissed the racketeering count on December 30, 2025, ruling that the Attorney General lacked jurisdiction to prosecute the case. The judge concluded that the phrase “dealing with or for the state” in Georgia law applies only to business transactions or mutually beneficial arrangements, not to crimes targeting state property or employees.
The dismissal left only five defendants facing charges of domestic terrorism and arson. The Attorney General filed an appeal on January 20.
What’s Important: The case stems from a 225-count indictment alleging a coordinated criminal conspiracy to stop construction of the training center through violence and property damage. The indictment alleges defendants committed more than 200 felony incidents across Georgia, including:
- Throwing a Molotov cocktail into the Department of Public Safety headquarters, injuring multiple state employees
- Shooting and wounding a Georgia State Patrol trooper
- Vandalizing University System of Georgia property
- Assaulting Department of Juvenile Justice employees
- Damaging Department of Transportation property
The Legal Question: The appeal centers on whether “dealing with the state” includes crimes targeting state employees and property, or only formal business transactions.
The Attorney General argues the phrase means “engaging with” the state and encompasses adversarial conduct. The office points to dictionary definitions from the 1940s, when the law was enacted in 1943, showing “deal with” meant “to have to do with” or “be concerned with.”
The trial court relied on Black’s Law Dictionary to conclude “deal” means a business arrangement for mutual advantage.
Why Double Jeopardy Matters: The Attorney General argues waiting until after trial would create irreparable harm because the domestic terrorism and arson charges are incorporated as predicate acts in the racketeering count. If a jury reaches a verdict on the remaining charges, double jeopardy protections could prevent retrying defendants on racketeering charges even if the appeals court reverses the dismissal.
Under Georgia law, a person cannot be convicted of multiple crimes if one is included in the other or if they differ only in scope.
The Evidence Problem: Without the racketeering charge, the state argues it cannot present evidence of the broader conspiracy. Under racketeering law, prosecutors can introduce evidence of co-conspirators’ actions to prove the existence of a conspiracy. Without that charge, evidence of the 56 dismissed defendants’ actions would likely be inadmissible as irrelevant third-party conduct.
The Funding Allegation: The indictment alleges three defendants operated a state-registered charity called The Network for Strong Communities that publicly advertised food access and mutual aid programs but privately ran a “Forest Justice Defense Fund” that provided cash and electronic transfers to support violence, property damage, and occupation of the forest surrounding the training center.
The Path Forward: The Court of Appeals will decide whether to grant immediate review. If granted, the court would determine whether the Attorney General has jurisdiction to prosecute crimes targeting state employees and property. The Attorney General argues the case requires precedent because no Georgia court has interpreted this provision of the law.
