A federal judge on Monday granted special counsel Jack Smith’s request to dismiss the federal election fraud case against President-elect Donald Trump, bringing an end to the criminal prosecution that accused Mr. Trump of trying to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

In a signed order Monday, Judge Tanya Chutkan dismissed the case without prejudice, which leaves the case open for possible refiling at a later date, potentially when Mr. Trump leaves office in 2029.  

The one-page order by the judge, an Obama appointee, said Mr. Smith’s motion “is hereby granted.”

Mr. Smith made the request Monday, saying he consulted with the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel and concluded he should drop the case before the inauguration on Jan. 20. Mr. Trump, who has long maintained the prosecution was concocted by the Biden administration in a failed attempt to derail his 2024 presidential campaign, has vowed to fire Mr. Smith “within two seconds” of starting his new term.

The special counsel said the prohibition on prosecuting Mr. Trump extends to this case, in which the president-elect was indicted as a private citizen but elected to another term in the White House while the prosecution was underway.

“That prohibition is categorical and does not turn on the gravity of the crimes charged, the strength of the government’s proof, or the merits of the prosecution, which the government stands fully behind,” Mr. Smith wrote in a filing to a federal court in Washington.

In a social media post, Mr. Trump said all the criminal cases against him “are empty and lawless, and should never have been brought.”

“Over $100 Million Dollars of Taxpayer Dollars has been wasted in the Democrat Party’s fight against their Political Opponent, ME,” he said. “It was a political hijacking, and a low point in the History of our Country that such a thing could have happened, and yet, I persevered, against all odds, and WON.”

The Trump transition team had hailed the special counsel’s move as a huge win. 

“Today’s decision by the DOJ ends the unconstitutional federal cases against President Trump, and is a major victory for the rule of law,” communications director Steven Cheung said. “The American people and President Trump want an immediate end to the political weaponization of our justice system and we look forward to uniting our country.”

The indictment accused Mr. Trump of conspiring against the U.S. and its voters by taking steps to overturn his election loss to President Biden four years ago. The case was delayed for months by Mr. Trump’s claim he enjoyed immunity for official acts taken during the final months of his presidency, an argument that was partially upheld by the Supreme Court last summer.

Mr. Smith pressed forward under a revamped version of the charges but was stymied by Mr. Trump’s win over Vice President Kamala Harris.

While Mr. Trump won’t be prosecuted for the attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, the same can’t be said for more than 1,000 of his supporters. As of August, more than 1,488 defendants have been charged in connection with Jan. 6, nearly 900 of whom have pleaded guilty to various offenses.

More than 560 people have been sentenced to prison terms. Mr. Trump has said he will consider pardoning many if not all of the Jan. 6 defendants.

The special counsel also is unwinding a parallel case that accuses Mr. Trump of unlawfully storing classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida.

A federal judge dismissed that case, reasoning Mr. Smith was unlawfully made special counsel because he was not confirmed by the Senate and was a private citizen when tasked with the case. 

Mr. Smith had appealed that ruling, but on Monday he made a request to drop that appeal too, citing the Office of Legal Counsel position. But he is leaving the case intact for two co-defendants, Waltine Nauta and Carlos de Oliveira.

“Unlike defendant Trump, no principle of temporary immunity applies to them,” assistant special counsel James I. Pearce wrote.

The twin actions capped a major turnaround for Mr. Trump, the first former president to face criminal prosecution. Though Mr. Biden formally kept his distance from Mr. Smith’s work, Democrats and their allies hoped the pile of prosecutions would fatally weaken Mr. Trump and his political prospects.

The cases appeared to have the opposite effect. Mr. Trump only strengthened in the eyes of Republican primary voters, and he used courthouse appearances as a high-profile stage to rail against his opponent.

Issues such as immigration and the economy overtook Mr. Trump’s legal woes during the general election contest and he romped to victory over Ms. Harris on election night.

Sen. Josh Hawley, Missouri Republican, said prosecutors no longer had a motivation to pursue Mr. Trump.

“Confirming what was obvious all along: this ‘prosecution’ was nothing more than election interference to keep Trump off the 2024 ballot. The left failed. The people won,” he wrote on X.

Mr. Trump still faces multimillion-dollar civil judgments against him, but he’s been winning in court in the criminal cases against him since a Manhattan jury convicted him of business fraud in May.

A Georgia racketeering case against Mr. Trump is in limbo and might not proceed, and a New York judge postponed sentencing Mr. Trump on the felony convictions as he considers motions to dismiss the case.

Mr. Smith’s election case was viewed as the most important case of the quartet, given its associations with the transfer of power and the visual imprint of pro-Trump supporters storming the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, while Mr. Trump contested the certification of Mr. Biden’s win.

Following the election, Mr. Smith took steps to wind down his cases, leading to the Monday filing. 

“The government’s position on the merits of the defendant’s prosecution has not changed,” he wrote. “But the circumstances have: as a result of the election held on November 5, 2024, the defendant will be certified as President-elect on January 6, 2025, and inaugurated on January 20, 2025.”

Mr. Smith pointed to the Office of Legal Counsel’s opinions, in 1973 following the Watergate scandal and 2000 following the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, that said prosecution of a sitting president would be an undue burden on presidential responsibilities.

“OLC concluded that, because a pending criminal prosecution would impair the president’s ability to carry out these responsibilities to the detriment of the nation, the constitutional interest in the president’s unfettered performance of his duties must take precedence over the immediate enforcement of the criminal law against a sitting president,” the filing said.

• Tom Howell Jr. can be reached at thowell@washingtontimes.com.

• Alex Swoyer can be reached at aswoyer@washingtontimes.com.