New York Attorney General Letitia James is asking the state’s highest court to reinstate the massive civil fraud penalty once imposed on President Donald Trump. She is seeking to undo a lower court ruling that erased what had grown into more than a half-billion-dollar fine.
On Thursday, James’ office filed a notice of appeal with the Court of Appeals, challenging last month’s decision by the Appellate Division, which found the penalty violated the Constitution’s prohibition on excessive fines. James, a Democrat, had already signaled she would fight the ruling.
The mid-level appeals court did not absolve Trump entirely. Its five-judge panel upheld findings that he committed fraud by inflating the value of his wealth on statements given to banks and insurers, and it allowed other punishments to stand, including a temporary ban on Trump and his sons Eric and Donald Jr. serving as corporate officers in New York.
READ ALSO: New York appeals court overturns $515 million civil fraud penalty against Trump
Trump, celebrating the fine’s dismissal as “TOTAL VICTORY,” filed his own appeal last week asking the Court of Appeals to strike down the remaining sanctions. His attorneys accused James of pursuing a “political crusade” and wasting taxpayer dollars on what they called a failed “Witch Hunt.”
Watch a recent episode of The BreakDown podcast below and subscribe to our channel PanaGenius TV for latest episodes.
James countered: “It should not be lost to history: yet another court has ruled that the president violated the law, and that our case has merit.”
The case stems from James’ 2022 lawsuit, which alleged Trump exaggerated his net worth by billions through misleading valuations of golf courses, hotels, Trump Tower, and Mar-a-Lago. After trial, Judge Arthur Engoron concluded Trump and his company engaged in a yearslong scheme to deceive lenders, ordering him to pay $355 million, a figure that swelled to over $515 million with interest before the Appellate Division intervened.
Although divided on several points, a majority of the appeals judges deemed the financial penalty disproportionate. “While harm certainly occurred, it was not the cataclysmic harm that can justify a nearly half billion-dollar award,” two wrote.
