The fate of the district attorney of Georgia’s Fulton County, Fani Willis, atop the racketeering case she brought against President Trump and his camarilla now turns on a legal loophole — so-called interlocutory review.  

That’s the term for an appeal like Mr. Trump’s request that Ms. Willis be disqualified. It is launched before a verdict is rendered and requests resolution before the trial can proceed. It is reserved for legal issues that are seen as so important that to delay them would fatally infringe on the rights of one of the parties.

Ms. Willis’s latest brief to the Georgia court of appeals asks that tribunal to deny the request for interlocutory review from Mr. Trump and his co-defendants. They want the appeals court to re-examine Judge Scott McAfee’s ruling allowing Ms. Willis to stay on this matter once her special prosecutor and former boyfriend, Nathan Wade, stepped aside. They also want the charges dismissed.

A law review article with a literary bent calls interlocutor appeals “an open but closely guarded door” because they amount to an exception to the final judgment rule, which mandates that only the last decision from a court that resolves all issues is eligible for review. Ms. Willis accuses her defendants of having failed to “​​carry their burden of persuasion” in seeking this unusual consideration.

Mr. Trump’s own submission to the court of appeals urging reversal spotlighted Judge McAfee’s findings that Ms. Willis’s comportment was marked by an “odor of mendacity” and a “tremendous lapse in judgment.” The district attorney, though, reckons that all that amounts to is “dissatisfaction with the trial court’s proper application of well-established law to the facts.”

Georgia courts allow for the interlocutory appeal Mr. Trump seeks if the issue at stake is dispositive of the case, if the order at hand appears erroneous, and if precedent so indicates. If the Georgia court of appeals decides to reopen the issue of Ms. Willis’s qualification, it will begin with Judge McAfee’s finding in the district attorney’s behavior a “significant appearance of impropriety” but no actual conflict of interest. 

That ruling will be reviewed under an “abuse of discretion” standard that is difficult for appellants to meet, especially if the appellate judges agree with Ms. Willis that “there is simply no trial court error to be found in the decision to deny disqualification.” Mr. Trump et al. allege that the financial entanglement between Ms. Willis and Mr. Wade — more than $650,000 has been paid to the special prosecutor — compromises their due process rights.

Mr. Trump and his co-defendants also allege constitutional harm stemming from Ms. Willis’s extramural comments about the case, particularly comments she made from a church pulpit that accused her foes of “playing the race card.” The 45th president wants the appeals court to consider whether that poisoned the jury pool at Fulton County, a majority-minority jurisdiction.

Judge McAfee found the remarks “legally improper” but declined to classify them as a disqualifying instance of “forensic misconduct.” He likely was deterred by precedent from Georgia’s supreme court, which has drawn the line at prosecutorial misbehavior “of such egregious nature as to require his disqualification.”   

Under Georgia law, the court of appeals has 45 days from when Mr. Trump requested review to decide whether to grant it. His brief hit the docket on March 29, meaning that their deadline is May 13. The case, though, is not frozen — Judge McAfee’s ruling stipulated that it continues at his courtroom while the higher court weighs whether to disqualify Ms. Willis.

Also on the docket of the Georgia court of appeals via interlocutory appeal is a petition from Mr. Trump for review of Judge McAfee’s denial of his motion to dismiss on the basis of the First Amendment. The 45th president claims that his actions in Georgia with respect to the election were protected by that constitutional shield. 

The judge disagreed, and on Monday Mr. Trump requested the same certificate for immediate review from Judge McAfee that he secured in the disqualification issue. Mr. Trump’s attorney, Steven Sadow, in a statement provided to the Sun, alleges that Ms. Willis’s indictment “wrongfully criminalizes core political speech and expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment. There is no democracy without robust and uninhibited freedom of expression.”

Ms. Willis faces pressure from her state’s executive and legislative branches as well. The Georgia senate has launched an investigation into her handling of the case, and last month Governor Kemp signed legislation that could give teeth — say, the power to remove from office — to a review board for prosecutors. Mr. Kemp explained that “this legislation will help us ensure rogue and incompetent prosecutors are held accountable.”