Hot Source•Temporarily bars him, children from serving in corporate leadership
•Supreme Court lets US president cut diversity-related health grants
Emmanuel Addeh in Abuja
A New York appeals court on yesterday threw out the massive financial penalty a state judge imposed on President Donald Trump, while narrowly upholding a finding he engaged in fraud by exaggerating his wealth for decades.
The ruling spared Trump from a potential half-billion-dollar fine but banned him and his two eldest sons from serving in corporate leadership for a few years, AP reported.
Trump, in a social media post, claimed “total victory” in the case, which stemmed from a civil lawsuit brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James.
“I greatly respect the fact that the Court had the courage to throw out this unlawful and disgraceful Decision that was hurting Business all throughout New York State,” the Republican wrote.
James, a Democrat, focused on the parts of the decision that went her way, saying in a statement that it “affirmed the well-supported finding of the trial court: Donald Trump, his company, and two of his children are liable for fraud.”
The ruling came seven months after Trump returned to the White House, his political fortunes unimpeded by the civil fraud judgment, a criminal conviction and other legal blows. A sharply divided panel of five judges in the state’s mid-level Appellate Division couldn’t agree on many issues raised in Trump’s appeal, but a majority said the monetary penalty was “excessive.”
A lower-court judge, Arthur Engoron, had ordered Trump last year to pay $355 million in penalties after finding that he flagrantly padded financial statements provided to lenders and insurers. With interest, the sum has topped $515 million.
Additional penalties for executives at his company, the Trump Organisation, including sons Eric and Donald Trump Jr., brought the total to $527 million with interest, the AP report added.
“While harm certainly occurred, it was not the cataclysmic harm that can justify a nearly half billion-dollar award” to the state, Judges Dianne Renwick and Peter Moulton wrote in one of three opinions shaping the appeals court’s ruling.
They called the penalty “an excessive fine that violates the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.” Both were appointed by Democratic governors.
Engoron’s other punishments, upheld by the appeals court, have been on pause during Trump’s appeal, and the president was able to hold off collection of the money by posting a $175 million bond.
Donald Trump Jr. celebrated the decision by mocking James, who had periodically posted a running tally of the fraud penalty, with interest. Over a post from James in February 2024, when the tally was nearly $465 million, Trump Jr. wrote: “I believe you mean $0.00. Thank you for your attention to this matter.”
The five-judge panel, which split on the merits of the lawsuit and Engoron’s fraud finding, dismissed the monetary penalty in its entirety while also leaving a pathway for an appeal to the state’s highest court, the Court of Appeals. In the meantime, Trump and his co-defendants, the judges wrote, can seek to extend the pause to prevent any punishments from taking effect.
While the Appellate Division dispatches most appeals in a few pages in a matter of weeks, the judges weighing Trump’s case took nearly 11 months to rule after oral arguments last fall and issued 323 pages of concurring and dissenting opinions with no majority. Rather, some judges endorsed parts of their colleagues’ findings while denouncing others, enabling the court to rule.
Two judges wrote that they felt James’ lawsuit was justifiable and that she had proven her case but the penalty was too severe. One wrote that James exceeded her legal authority in bringing the suit, saying that if any lenders felt cheated, they could have sued Trump themselves, and none did. Another wrote that Engoron erred by ruling before the trial that James had proven Trump engaged in fraud.
In his portion of the ruling, Judge David Friedman, appointed by a Republican governor, was scathing in his criticism of James for bringing the lawsuit.
“Plainly, her ultimate goal was not ‘market hygiene’ … but political hygiene, ending with the derailment of President Trump’s political career and the destruction of his real estate business,” Friedman wrote. “The voters have obviously rendered a verdict on his political career. This bench today unanimously derails the effort to destroy his business,” Friedman added.
Trump and his co-defendants denied wrongdoing. At the conclusion of the civil trial in January 2024, Trump said he was “an innocent man” and the case was a “fraud on me.” The Republican has repeatedly maintained the case and the verdict were political moves by James and Engoron, both Democrats.
Trump’s Justice Department has subpoenaed James for records related to the lawsuit, among other documents, as part of an investigation into whether she violated the president’s civil rights. James’ personal attorney Abbe D. Lowell has said investigating the fraud case is “the most blatant and desperate example of this administration carrying out the president’s political retribution campaign.”
Trump and his lawyers said his financial statements weren’t deceptive, since they came with disclaimers noting they weren’t audited. The defense also noted bankers and insurers independently evaluated the numbers, and the loans were repaid.
Despite such discrepancies as tripling the size of his Trump Tower penthouse, he said the financial statements were, if anything, lowball estimates of his fortune.
During an appellate court hearing last September, Trump’s lawyers argued that many of the case’s allegations were too old and that James had misused a consumer protection law to sue Trump over private business transactions that were satisfactory to those involved.
State attorneys said that while Trump insists no one was harmed by the financial statements, his exaggerations led lenders to make riskier loans and that honest borrowers lose out when others game their net worth numbers.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Supreme Court let Trump’s administration on Thursday proceed with sweeping cuts to National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants for research related to racial minorities or LGBT people, part of his crackdown on diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives and transgender identity.
The justices granted the Justice Department’s request to lift Boston-based U.S. District Judge William Young’s decision in June that the grant terminations violated federal law, while a legal challenge brought by researchers and 16 U.S. states plays out in a lower court.
The NIH is the world’s largest funder of biomedical research. The cuts are part of Trump’s wide-ranging actions to reshape the U.S. government, slash federal spending and end government support for programs aimed at promoting diversity or “gender ideology” that the administration opposes.
The administration said Young’s ruling required the NIH to continue paying $783 million in grants that run counter to its priorities, a Reuters report said.
The administration repeatedly has sought the Supreme Court’s intervention to allow implementation of Trump policies impeded by lower courts. The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has sided with the administration in almost every case that it has been called upon to review since Trump returned to the presidency in January.
After Trump signed executive orders in January targeting DEI and gender ideology, NIH instructed staff to terminate grant funding for “low-value and off-mission” studies deemed related to these concepts, as well as COVID-19 and ways to curb vaccine hesitancy.
Young’s ruling came in two lawsuits challenging the cuts. One was filed by the American Public Health Association, individual researchers and other plaintiffs who called the cuts an “ongoing ideological purge” targeting projects based on “vague, now-forbidden language.” The other was filed by the states, most of them Democratic-led.
The post Court Throws Out Massive $527m Civil Fraud Penalty against Trump appeared first on THISDAYLIVE.
