A New York appeals court hearing has cast doubt on the hefty civil fraud judgment against former President Donald Trump.
According to The Associated Press, some judges on the five-member panel of the state's intermediate appeals court in Manhattan expressed skepticism about the nearly $500 million penalty imposed on Trump.
The hearing, which took place on Thursday, saw the judges questioning lawyers from both sides about the merits of the case and the severity of the punishment.
The case, brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James, alleges that Trump inflated his net worth on financial statements provided to banks, insurers, and other business partners. Judge Arthur Engoron ruled in February that Trump had engaged in fraudulent practices, ordering him to pay $363.9 million in penalties, a sum that has since grown to over $489 million with interest.
During the hearing, some judges on the panel appeared to sympathize with Trump's legal team's arguments. Judge Peter H. Moulton raised concerns about potential "mission creep" by the Attorney General's office, questioning whether the law used to sue Trump had "morphed into something that it was not meant to do."
Similarly, Judge David Friedman drew comparisons to other cases brought under the same law, noting that Trump's case seemed to lack the widespread harm to large groups of people seen in those instances.
Judge Moulton also described the penalty as "troubling," prompting a defense of the judgment from the state's deputy solicitor general, Judith Vale. Vale argued that the law permitted the judge to essentially reclaim whatever Trump gained from transactions based on his inflated financial statements.
Trump's lawyer, D. John Sauer, presented arguments challenging the basis of the lawsuit. Sauer contended that the case stretched the state's consumer protection laws beyond their intended scope, involving the government in transactions where there were "no victims" and "no complaints."
He emphasized that Trump's business dealings were with "sophisticated counterparties" capable of conducting their own due diligence.
Furthermore, Sauer argued that if the verdict is allowed to stand, it could have a chilling effect on real estate businesses, potentially exposing them to similar scrutiny for routine transactions.
The timing of the appeals court's decision could have significant implications for the upcoming presidential election. The court typically issues rulings about a month after arguments, meaning a decision could come before Election Day on November 5. The outcome of this appeal could potentially uphold, reduce, or overturn the original verdict.
Trump, who did not attend the hearing, has previously criticized the lawsuit as "election interference" and accused Judge Engoron of unfairly punishing him for building a successful company. The former president has vowed to fight the verdict "all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary."
In conclusion, the New York appeals court hearing has raised questions about the $500 million civil fraud judgment against Donald Trump. Some judges expressed concerns about the scope of the lawsuit and the severity of the penalty. The court's decision, expected before the presidential election, could significantly impact both Trump's finances and his political future.
