Trump still waiting on ruling of $454M civil fraud judgment appeal, sparking debate over judicial bias: ‘Politics is interfering'

New York Post

7 days ago

President Trump has been waiting a whopping 293 days for a five-judge panel's decision on his appeal of the massive $454 million civil fraud judgment won last year by state Attorney General Letitia James — with many experts, including Trump detractors, suspecting political motives as the average wait in the First Department appellate division is just 30 days.
The oral arguments in Trump's appeal on Sept. 26, 2024, were widely seen by journalists and lawyers as sympathetic to the then-Republican presidential nominee, who is appealing the massive penalty for allegedly inflating the value of his assets to secure loans, which he denies.
At least one panelist, Presiding Justice Dianne Renwick, is considered likely to rule against Trump — with a non-Trump affiliated attorney referring to Renwick as a 'political animal' appointed by Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul because of her perceived partisan reliability.
'Obviously it seems that politics is interfering with the judgment,' said Bennett Gershman, an openly anti-Trump law professor at Pace University.
'It's there. Is it inappropriate? Yes. Is it something that happens? Yes.'
3 President Trump is appealing a $454 million civil fraud judgment.
REUTERS
Any member of a five-judge panel can place a 'hold' on releasing a decision without having to provide an explanation, several experts familiar with the appeals process said.
'This delay is creating the perception that the presiding judge is stalling the decision to prevent a favorable decision for the president,' said a legal source who has tracked the case.
Gershman, who has argued cases before the First Department and mingled with its judges at campus events, said it's impossible to know for sure what the judges are saying or thinking, but that it's implausible that the ruling and dissents aren't written.
'I don't think it's that complicated of a question that takes 293-plus days to decide. It could be one judge holding it up. It could be more than one judge,' he said.
'Judges are human beings, and they have personal ideologies and biases and all kinds of things that make their judging sometimes close to what their political feelings are.'
3 Presiding Justice Dianne Renwick, right, is seen a likely vote to uphold the verdict. She was appointed by Gov. Kathy Hohcul, left.
Matthew McDermott
Gershman said he personally believes Trump is guilty and that the trial court ruling by Judge Arthur Engoron, whom the president and his allies repeatedly accused of bias, should be upheld.
He added, however: 'This is an extreme case where the president of the United States is being reviewed. His conduct is being reviewed by these judges and there obviously are personal and political motivations that might interfere with their judgment even if it's unconscious. I think this case is a pretty good example of how it can happen and play out in the real world.'
Several attorneys familiar with the work of the First Department, which is one of four appellate divisions in the state, requested anonymity to share their insights on the unusually long delay.
3 New York Attorney General Letitia James brought the fraud case against Trump, arguing he inflated the value of his assets.
AP
An attorney who does not represent Trump told The Post that data from the past 18 months indicate that the average time for the division to issue an appeals ruling is just under 30 days from oral arguments. Signed decisions average longer – 140 days.
That source said that Trump's appeal is currently the only one pending in the First Department that's older than a couple months and that it's 'not even remotely close to anything.'
'The [presiding justice] is a political animal. I mean, she is. And so I would be surprised if there wasn't some political angle to this,' he added.
Judge David Friedman, another member of the panel, appeared closely aligned with Trump's arguments last September — and two other panelists are speculated to be leaning his way, though oral arguments aren't always a clear indicator of results.
Friedman, 74, is a Democrat appointed by Republican Gov. George Pataki in 1999 and is expected to leave the bench Dec. 31.
'If he's holding the majority, and I assume, based on the oral argument, that he's holding the majority, she could try and wait him out, which would be a scandal of epic proportions,' said one source.
White House sources in April claimed that Hochul told Trump 'I control the judges' during a February meeting in the Oval Office, which Hochul denied at the time.
'Hochul, who controls the judges, is demanding President Trump's help on congestion pricing, on wind farms, on energy and so much more while she keeps this nonsense case over the president's head. That is pure extortion,' an attorney familiar with the case claimed without offering evidence.
Hochul's office, James' spokespeople and the First Department did not respond to requests for comment.
A Trump legal team spokesman said: 'Letitia James' failed political crusade against President Trump is one of the most outrageous examples of the discredited radical lawfare campaign against the president. Her 'case' should have never seen the light of day, it is entirely phony, it is barred by the statute of limitations and it relies on her intentionally dishonest valuation of one of the most desirable properties in the world, Mar-a-Lago… at a ridiculous $18 million, while it is worth 10 times that.'
The Trump spokesman alleged a 'multitude of other fatal errors and lies' and said 'it is time for the New York courts to finally step in and end this witch hunt once and for all.'
The delay is costing Trump a significant but unknown amount of money in attorney fees and bond costs that he may never recoup.
Once a ruling is released, there's likely to be another appeal by the losing party to the New York Court of Appeals, which is likely to have the final say unless the US Supreme Court decides there's a federal claim to address.
There's not a unanimous agreement on why the First Department ruling is taking so long.
One Manhattan legal source familiar with the system said 'I think the most likely explanation for the delay in the case is that there's a dissent of one or more judges and it's been a spirited exchange of views. This process can take a long time when there's dissent and the dissent makes strong arguments.'
Columbia University law professor John Coffee offered a different theory — speculating that the appeal may be taking abnormally long due to analysis of the massive sanctions.
'While a split panel may take a longer time, 293 days seems too long to explain on that basis alone,' Coffee said.
'The leading issue may be the amount of the damages, as appellate courts are more apt to intervene there than on issues that clearly belong to the jury.'
One of the lawyers who spoke to The Post said that the unusual delay is likely to loosen lips at the courthouse if it drags on much longer.
'The building has so far been fairly tight about this case,' he said. 'But, you know, people talk. Sooner or later, I think that will come out.'