A New York appeals court raised doubts on Thursday about the $489 million civil fraud judgment against Donald Trump, his sons, and their businesses, questioning whether the penalty imposed by the state attorney general was too severe or even justified. The skepticism from the five-judge panel opens the possibility that the fine could be reduced or vacated.
Judges Question Extent of Attorney General’s Authority
During the oral arguments, several justices expressed concerns over the scope of New York Attorney General Letitia James’ authority in the civil fraud case. Associate Justice Peter H. Moulton voiced apprehension about potential “mission creep,” suggesting the attorney general’s office may have overstepped its powers in pursuing the Trump case. Similarly, Associate Justice John R. Higgitt and Associate Justice David Friedman questioned whether New York’s broad fraud statutes were intended to apply to private transactions between sophisticated parties like Trump and financial institutions.
