Transparency is a messy business. If you’ve been following the saga in Fulton County, you know it’s basically been a non-stop whirlwind of headlines, court motions, and dramatic testimony. But while the national news was obsessed with the romance and the "get-Trump" prosecution, a quieter, equally important battle was happening over a stack of paperwork. Honestly, the way the fani willis open records situation played out says a lot about how power works when nobody is looking—or when they’re looking too closely.
The Georgia Open Records Act is a pretty straightforward tool. It’s the "people’s law," designed so that you or I can ask a government agency for a document and actually get it. Usually, you send an email, wait three days, and maybe pay a small fee for copies. With the Fulton County DA’s office? It wasn't that simple. Not even close.
What Really Happened with the Fani Willis Open Records Lawsuits
Earlier in 2025, the legal dam finally broke. Fulton County Superior Court Judge Rachel Krause didn't just rule against Fani Willis; she used some pretty scathing language to do it. The court found that the DA’s office had violated the law in a way that was—and I’m quoting the judge here—"intentional, not done in good faith, and were substantially groundless and vexatious."
That’s legal-speak for "you knew better and you did it anyway."
The lawsuit was brought by Ashleigh Merchant, the defense attorney who originally blew the lid off the relationship between Willis and special prosecutor Nathan Wade. Merchant had been asking for three specific things:
- A full list of attorneys Willis had hired since taking office in 2021.
- The confidentiality agreements that employees in the DA's office have to sign.
- Correspondence with the Fulton County Purchasing Department about how outside counsel gets paid.
You’d think a government office would have these things ready to go. Instead, the court found that the DA’s records custodian, Dexter Bond, was "openly hostile" to Merchant. He admitted on the stand that he handled her requests differently than he did others. He didn't call her to clarify things. He just... didn't provide them.
The price tag for that lack of cooperation? A cool $54,103.23 in attorney's fees that Willis's office was ordered to pay to Merchant.
It wasn't just Ashleigh Merchant
While Merchant was winning her case, Judicial Watch was fighting its own battle. They wanted to see if Willis had been coordinating with the Jan. 6 Committee or Jack Smith’s team at the Department of Justice.
📖 Related: Republican Nominee NYC Mayor: Why Curtis Sliwa Still Matters
For a long time, the DA’s office basically said, "We don't have those records."
Then, after a judge found the office in default because they literally didn't show up to answer the lawsuit, documents suddenly appeared. It turns out there was a letter from December 2021 where Willis had reached out to the Jan. 6 Committee. It wasn't some "smoking gun" of a conspiracy, but the fact that the office claimed it didn't exist until a judge forced their hand? That’s what gets people riled up.
In late 2024 and throughout 2025, judges were increasingly tired of the delays. Judge Robert McBurney gave the office five days to produce records for Judicial Watch, noting that the court had essentially declared the office in violation of the Open Records Act by default.
🔗 Read more: The Bibb County Sex Trafficking Case: What Really Happened in That Alabama Bunker
Why Does This Matter in 2026?
You might be wondering why we're still talking about this since the racketeering case itself has been through the wringer. Well, as of January 2026, the financial fallout is getting real. The DA’s office is currently staring down a potential $17 million bill from Trump and his co-defendants who are seeking reimbursement for their legal fees under a 2025 Georgia law.
When a government office is caught "hiding the ball" on records, it feeds a specific narrative. Whether you support the DA or not, the open records violations gave the defense a lot of ammunition to argue that the prosecution wasn't just about the law—it was personal.
The Georgia Supreme Court Stepped In
There was this whole technical argument where the DA’s office tried to claim they couldn't even be sued under the Open Records Act. They argued they were "judicial officers" and therefore exempt. The Georgia Supreme Court basically shut that down. They ruled that District Attorneys are absolutely subject to the law because they maintain public records like any other state department.
It was a win for transparency, but a major blow to the "immunity" the office was trying to claim.
💡 You might also like: The Pentagon Failed Its 7th Audit and Honestly, Nobody Is Surprised
Actionable Insights: What You Should Know
If you ever find yourself needing to file a request or tracking a high-profile case like this, keep these things in mind:
- Deadlines are mandatory: Under Georgia law (O.C.G.A. § 50-18-71), an agency has three business days to tell you if the records exist and when you can see them. They can't just ignore you.
- "Hostility" has a price: The $54,000 fine against Willis’s office happened because the judge saw a pattern of treating one person differently than others. Transparency laws are supposed to be "blind."
- The "We don't have it" defense is risky: As we saw with the Judicial Watch records, "not having" a record can quickly turn into a legal nightmare if that record is later found in an employee's email.
- Check the status of the case: Currently, the Fulton County election case is largely stalled while the Georgia Court of Appeals deals with the disqualification issues, but the open records lawsuits are mostly resolved, having forced the release of hundreds of pages of documents.
The takeaway here isn't just about Fani Willis. It’s about the fact that even the most powerful prosecutors in the country have to answer to the same transparency laws as a local school board. When those laws are ignored, the courts eventually catch up—and the taxpayers usually end up footing the bill for the legal fees.
To stay updated on the specific documents released, you can monitor the Fulton County Superior Court's public portal or the Georgia First Amendment Foundation, which tracks these kinds of transparency disputes across the state. The $54,000 fine was a rare and loud message to government officials everywhere: the records belong to the public, not the office.