The ongoing legal battle between New York Attorney General Letitia James and former President Donald Trump has grown increasingly complex.
The issues plaguing the civil fraud case brought by James stem largely from growing judicial skepticism at the appeals court level, as Newsweek reports.
James filed a lawsuit in September 2022, accusing Donald Trump and The Trump Organization of financial misconduct. February saw an initial ruling by New York Judge Arthur Engoron, which found Trump and others guilty of misleading lenders and insurance companies for favorable terms. Trump's lawyers quickly condemned the ruling, launching an appeal and labeling it a case of "election interference."
The lawsuit's penalties, nearly half a billion dollars, have been a point of contention. Trump’s legal team argued the sanctions were excessive and claimed some accusations fell outside the statute of limitations. On Thursday, a five-judge appellate panel heard these arguments, with several judges showing openness to Trump's points.
Jonathan Turley, a legal analyst and professor, expressed doubts about James's progress in an opinion column for The Hill. Turley suggested that James might be "losing the war" against Trump, highlighting the skepticism displayed by judges.
Justice David Friedman questioned the legal basis of James's lawsuit, noting that the relevant law is meant to protect the market and consumers, a connection he struggled to see. Justice Peter Moulton added that the massive penalty imposed by Engoron was "troubling" since the involved parties had not claimed harm.
Deputy New York Solicitor General Judith Vale defended the size of the fine, arguing it was proportionate due to substantial fraud and illegality. Justice Moulton countered, emphasizing the need for limitations on the attorney general's power to intervene in private transactions without claims of harm.
The appellate court's decision, expected within a month, could significantly influence the run-up to Election Day on Nov. 5.
James's lawsuit is one of many legal challenges Trump faces. The former president was convicted in May on 34 felony counts of falsified business documents, with sentencing in that matter still pending.
Turley highlighted in his column what he views as a disconnect between judicial standards and political motives in this case. He remarked that James's audience appears to be political, rather than judicial, focusing on the political ramifications rather than judicial validity.
More critically, Turley criticized the imposed fines, noting that the core issue seems political rather than market-driven. He commented that Engoron's penalty was dictated by political, not legal metrics.
He further opined that some judges have grown weary of this political undertone, especially given the satisfaction of banks involved in the fraudulent transactions. "The fact that the banks were 'happy' is immaterial. Happiness in New York is a political, not legal calculus," Turley stated.
Questions from the appellate bench further fuel this narrative. Justice Friedman and Moulton's concerns about the application and extent of James's legal approach underline broader questions regarding overreach and political motivation versus legal integrity.
