President Trump’s electoral win is likely to complicate the efforts to convict him in a court of law and deals devastating blows to the painstaking and years-long work of Special Counsel Jack Smith, District Attorney Alvin Bragg, Attorney General Letitia James, and District Attorney Fani Willis. It could be game over for that prosecutorial quartet. 

The most direct casualty could be the two criminal cases brought by Mr. Smith. Trump has promised to fire Mr. Smith “within two seconds” of taking the oath of office. The January 6 and Mar-a-Lago criminal cases could disappear in short order, casualties of Trump’s imminent control of the Department of Justice. 

A taste of what is to come arrived via Senator Graham’s X account. The senator, a former prosecutor in the Air Force, addressed a note to “Jack Smith and your team” that asserted that “it is time to look forward to a new chapter in your legal careers as these politically motivated charges against President Trump hit a wall. The Supreme Court substantially rejected what you were trying to do, and after tonight, it’s clear the American people are tired of lawfare. Bring these cases to an end.”

That end could come before Inauguration Day. NBC News reports that officials from the Department of Justice “have been evaluating how to wind down the two federal criminal cases” against Trump because they “see no room to pursue either criminal case against him — and no point in continuing to litigate them in the weeks before he takes office.” Mr. Smith will reportedly depart his post prior to Trump taking office.   

A willingness to do that will likely be one of the first qualifications of whoever Trump chooses as his attorney general. Beginning on January 20, Trump will also be in full constitutional command of the pardon power and “shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States.” He has vowed to wield that power to deliver clemency to January 6 defendants.

While Mr. Smith’s cases will likely never reach trial, the cases brought by New York’s attorney general, Ms. James, and Manhattan’s district attorney, Mr. Bragg, have resulted in verdicts that were triumphs for the two prosecutors. Ms. James’s civil fraud trial ended with a verdict that called for Trump to pay more than $450 million, along with a raft of punitive measures. 

That verdict against the 45th president, his children, and the organization that bears his name fulfilled a promise that Ms. James made when she campaigned for attorney general. She called Trump a “con man” and “carnival barker,” and  vowed on the stump to “bring light into every dark corner of his real estate dealings.” Judge Arthur Engoron was so persuaded that was the case that he found Trump liable on summary judgment.

Ms. James on Wednesday said at a press conference that “we did not expect” the result of the presidential election, but that “we are prepared to respond.” She said she would “use the rule of law to fight back.” She added that she “would not shrink from that responsibility.” 

Seven months after Judge Engoron’s verdict, in an unrelated criminal case over hush money brought by the district attorney of New York County, a jury returned 34 guilty verdicts. The prosecutor, Mr. Bragg, during his campaign for office, reminded voters that he “sued the Trump administration more than 100 times.” The case in which he secured a conviction centered on payments made to an adult film star, Stephanie Clifford, known as Stormy Daniels. The Department of Justice opted not to press those charges.

Now, those two outcomes are at risk. A five-judge panel on the Appellate Division, New York’s first review court, evinced skepticism toward Judge Engoron’s ruling. One justice noted that nobody “lost any money” on account of the alleged fraud. Another reckoned that “the immense penalty in this case is troubling.” After she secured the verdict, Ms. James said that while Trump “may have authored the ‘Art of the Deal,’” her case disclosed “that his business was based on the art of the steal.” 

Mr. Bragg’s verdict could also be hanging by a thread. The presiding judge, Juan Merchan, will on November 26 sentence Trump for those guilty verdicts. While the presidential pardon power will not reach Judge Merchan’s chambers, the Supreme Court could view a state judge sentencing a president-elect to prison as an intrusion on federal prerogative and an act crosswise with the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.

That could arise because the president’s constitutional charge to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed” could be frustrated by a prison sentence. Judge Merchan could opt to avoid that outcome — or Governor Hochul could issue a pardon.

The district attorney’s indictment was handed up during the Republican primaries, and some saw it as cementing the 45th president’s status as frontrunner to become the 47th. The cases brought by the Empire State prosecutors did not seem to persuade New York voters of Trump’s unsuitability for office. He improved on his 2020 showing in the Empire State by seven points.

Trump also bettered his performance in Georgia, where the district attorney of Fulton County, Fani Willis, charged him and 18 others in a sprawling racketeering case. That prosecution has been upended by the disclosure that Ms. Willis was conducting a secret affair with her special prosecutor, Nathan Wade. The Georgia Court of Appeals is set to hear oral arguments on that issue next month — if the case staggers on that long.