In a recent appeals court hearing, some New York judges showed openness to potentially reducing or overturning the nearly $500 million civil fraud judgment against former President Donald Trump.
As reported by the Associated Press, the five-judge panel of the state's intermediate appeals court in Manhattan questioned lawyers from both sides during oral arguments on Thursday.
The hearing focused on Trump's appeal of Judge Arthur Engoron's February 16 verdict, which found that Trump had falsified his wealth on financial documents provided to banks and insurers to secure loans and make deals. This ruling struck at the heart of Trump's image as a successful businessman. To alter the outcome, at least three of the five judges who heard Thursday's arguments must agree.
During the hearing, some judges expressed reservations about the scale of the penalty and the extent of the state's involvement in private business transactions. Judge Peter H. Moulton referred to the "immense penalty" as "troubling" and questioned whether the attorney general's actions could be seen as "mission creep."
Trump's lawyer, D. John Sauer, argued that the lawsuit stretched consumer protection laws beyond their intended scope. He claimed there were "no victims" and "no complaints" in the transactions involved, which were conducted with "sophisticated counterparties" capable of their own due diligence.
The state's deputy solicitor general, Judith Vale, countered by asserting that there was indeed "a public impact and a public interest" in the case. She noted that lenders, including Deutsche Bank, faced undue risk based on Trump's financial representations.
Sauer warned that if the verdict stands, it could have a chilling effect on real estate transactions. He argued that people might fear conducting business in the sector if they face similar scrutiny to what Trump has experienced.
Judge David Friedman drew comparisons between Trump's case and others brought under the same law, noting that previous cases involved corporate actions that harmed large groups of people. He questioned whether Trump's case justified similar legal action.
Vale defended the penalty, explaining that under the law, the judge was allowed to essentially reclaim whatever Trump gained from transactions based on his inflated financial statements. This included profits from property sales and savings from lower loan interest rates.
The appeals court, known as the Appellate Division, typically issues rulings about a month after arguments. This timeline suggests a decision could come before the November 5 Election Day. The court has the option to uphold, reduce, or overturn the trial verdict.
Trump did not attend the hearing, which took place in an ornate appellate courtroom. This setting contrasted sharply with the more austere courthouse where he recently appeared as a criminal defendant in his hush-money felony case.
If either side is dissatisfied with the outcome, they can petition the state's highest court, the Court of Appeals, to consider the case. Trump has stated his intention to fight the verdict "all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary."
The appeals court hearing has revealed potential openings for a reduction or reversal of the civil fraud judgment against Donald Trump. The judges' questions and comments suggest concerns about the scale of the penalty and the scope of the attorney general's jurisdiction. As the legal process continues, the outcome of this appeal could have significant implications for Trump's financial future and his ongoing political career.
