Several of the judges on a New York appeals court are signaling their potential openness to altering the $454 million civil fraud judgment against President Donald J. Trump, which stems from litigation brought by the state’s Democrat Attorney General, Letitia James. Arguing before the five-judge panel on Thursday, Trump’s attorneys characterized far-left New York Judge Arthur Engoron’s February ruling as “draconian, unlawful, and unconstitutional.”
Judge Peter H. Moulton raised concerns about the scope and penalty of James’ lawsuit, describing the case’s immense penalty as “troubling.” The state appellate judge pressed James’s office as to whether the prosecution of Trump was the result of “mission creep” that “morphed [the law] into something that it was not meant to do.”
In addition to Moulton, Judge David Friedman noted the disparities between prior prosecutions in which corporations were prosecuted under New York law for causing harm to large numbers of individuals and James’s case against Trump. “It hardly seems that justifies bringing an action,” Judge Friedman said of James’s charges against Trump. Noting the stark difference with past cases of corporate harm, he added: “You don’t have anything like that here.”
Meanwhile, Judge John Higgitt signaled additional skepticism of the civil action against Trump, suggesting the court may need to establish “guardrails” to prevent the New York Attorney General from “going into an area that wasn’t intended for her jurisdiction.”
The appellate court, which typically rules a month after hearings, could decide on Trump’s appeal before the November presidential election. Trump’s legal team had requested a stay on the $454 million judgment, arguing it was an unprecedented demand for a private company and practically impossible to post. An appeals court reduced Trump’s bond payment in March, and he paid $175 million.
