A New York appeals court on Thursday threw out a half-billion-dollar judgment against President Trump, eliminating an enormous financial burden while declining to overturn the fraud case against him, a remarkable turn in a case that pitted the President against one of his fiercest political foes.
“While harm certainly occurred, it was not the cataclysmic harm that can justify a nearly half billion-dollar award to the state,” wrote Peter Moulton, one of the appeals judges whose lengthy and convoluted ruling reflected significant disagreement among the five-judge panel.
The President’s appeal will now most likely move to New York’s highest court, providing him another opportunity to challenge the finding that he was a fraudster.
Thursday’s ruling handed Trump a financial victory and some legal validation, and represents a major setback for the attorney general, Letitia James, who is one of the President’s foremost adversaries and a target of his retribution campaign. The case had been a career-defining victory after she campaigned for the attorney general’s office promising to bring Trump to justice.
However, the decision fell short of the full vindication the President had been seeking in his fight against James. In denying Trump’s bid to throw out the case, the court kept in place the ruling that he had committed fraud, an ignominious distinction for a sitting American President.
James filed the case against Trump and his family real estate business in 2022, accusing them of inflating his net worth to obtain favorable loan ter After a monthslong trial, the judge overseeing the case ruled last year that Trump was liable for fraud, denting the real estate mogul image that underpinned his political rise.
Thursday’s ruling came almost a year after judges heard oral arguments on the appeals case, an unusual delay that reflected the legal and political complexities of a case against a sitting President. Ultimately, the case was so divisive that the five appellate court judges failed to form a majority.
Justice Moulton’s opinion upholding the case and wiping out the financial penalties received one additional vote, from the chief judge, Dianne Renwick.
Another judge, David Friedman, who has been sceptical of the accusations for years, wanted to throw the case out entirely, believing James had lacked the power to bring it.
New York Times News Service