When a New York appeals court heard arguments last year in Donald Trump’s civil fraud appeal, I noted that while the hearing could’ve gone worse for Trump and better for New York Attorney Letitia James, “one can never be sure from oral argument what the precise ruling will be.”
Nearly a year later, it appears that the court itself is still unsure.
That’s evident from the fact that the court is yet to rule on Trump’s challenge to the staggering nine-figure ruling against his family business that James secured last year.
But an interesting report on the unusual delay from The Wall Street Journal adds intrigue to the matter. Citing unnamed sources in a report that hasn’t been confirmed by MSNBC, it said that members of the five-justice appellate panel “have been divided, and three of them have been writing opinions.”
The report doesn’t detail the substance of those opinions or what type of opinions they are. There could be a three-justice majority that’s firmly established for one side or the other, while two other justices are writing their own dissents or concurring opinions to the draft majority opinion. That doesn’t mean there will be three opinions published when the case is finally decided, as the Journal noted, because jurists can change their positions during the drafting process.
At any rate, getting any behind-the-scenes reporting about a pending judicial decision is notable — certainly in a case of this importance.
As a reminder of what the legal debate is all about, I wrote in connection with last year’s hearing, “Part of the issue boils down to how broadly James used a state law to go after Trump and his civil co-defendants for fraud in financial dealings, given that it wasn’t a case where victims were conned and then complained to the government about it. Put differently, the question is how broadly that law, Executive Law 63(12), can reach.” The court’s impending decision carries implications for the future of business and legal proceedings in the state beyond Trump. It also serves as a reminder that, although his 2024 election victory quashed his federal criminal cases, the president has several pending personal legal disputes, including another appeal challenging his hush money conviction in New York. Meanwhile, Trump’s Justice Department is investigating James personally in response to her pursuit of Trump in court prior to his election. However the Appellate Division rules in Trump’s civil fraud case, it won’t necessarily be the final word. The Appellate Division is the state’s intermediate appeals court, and the losing side can try to reverse their loss in the state’s highest court, the Court of Appeals. Even that might not end the case, because the ultimate losing side in state court might try to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. But first the case needs to clear this intermediate step. Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration’s legal cases.
Jordan Rubin is the Deadline: Legal Blog writer. He was a prosecutor for the New York County District Attorney’s Office in Manhattan and is the author of “Bizarro," a book about the secret war on synthetic drugs. Before he joined MS NOW, he was a legal reporter for Bloomberg Law.
Latest Post
Recommended
