Letitia James may be poised for defeat amid appeals panel skepticism of Trump civil fraud outcome

Though she has long been a large part of the campaign of lawfare lodged against former President Donald Trump, New York Attorney General Letitia James may be in for a bit of a rude awakening.

As the New York Post reports, an appeals panel in the Empire State showed skepticism last week when hearing Trump's appeal of a staggering $454 million civil fraud judgment in a case brought by James and adjudicated by Judge Arthur Engoron, potentially signaling an inclination to reverse the finding of liability or to greatly reduce the penalty imposed.

Skepticism on appeal

Revelations about the appeals panel's concerns emerged last week when Trump's legal team argued for reversal or revision of the massive financial penalty levied against him earlier this year.

With Trump facing the prospect of paying a total of $454 million, including interest on the original judgment amount, some potentially encouraging signals were conveyed by at least one of the jurists hearing the appeal.

James had contended that Trump and his company had fraudulently inflated the value of key assets in order to secure more favorable loan and insurance terms, and though Engoron sided with her on those assertions, the appeals panel may not be so easily convinced, with one judge declaring the outcome “troubling.”

Trump lawyer John Sauer said that James had wrongfully contorted the state's consumer protection laws to obtain a finding of liability when there were no victims and no complaints lodged about his client's business conduct, with lenders admitting that they were fully repaid on all loans extended and were eager to continue doing business with the former president and his organization.

Sauer also cited the statute of limitations to argue that some of the transactions that formed the meat of the case should never have been part of the case and that if the verdict is permitted to stand, “people can't do business in real estate” in New York due to the risk and uncertainty the precedent would yield.

Expert weighs in

Noted law professor and commentator Jonathan Turley has suggested that while the appeals panel's decision is still weeks away, James is “losing the war” she waged against Trump, something she pledged to do when she ran for the post she currently holds.

In a weekend op-ed, Turley noted the skepticism with which James' case was met by the appeals court and warned that she could be at real risk of collapse, at least in this phase of her lawfare campaign against Trump.

“In appellate arguments this week James's office faced openly skeptical justices who raised the very arguments that some of us have made for years about the ludicrous fine imposed by Judge Arthur Engoron,” Turley observed.

Turley went on to say that “the case was never about markets. It was about politics. The fact that the banks were 'happy' is immaterial...[i]n the end, James knows her audience, and it is not appellate judges. It does not matter to her if she is found to be violating the Constitution or abusing opponents. She has converted the New York legal system into a series of thrill-kills. For some judges, however, the thrill may be gone.”

As journalist Glenn Greenwald aptly mused on X, “One of the most darkly hilarious things I've seen in politics is how Democrats and media liberals constantly run around warning that if Trump wins, he'll weaponize the justice system by prosecuting his political enemies, and they do it with zero sense of irony or self-awareness,” but perhaps, at least in this instance, James will be forced to take a loss and maybe even learn a lesson.