Trump's lawyers filed a reply brief in the New York Court of Appeals demanding the state's highest court throw out his civil fraud liability finding, arguing the case against him and his family should never have been brought.
President Donald Trump's legal team fired back Wednesday in the New York Court of Appeals, demanding the state's highest court throw out his liability finding in the $464 million civil fraud case that has shadowed his family's business for years.
The reply brief, filed in response to New York Attorney General Letitia James' appeal to resurrect penalties that a lower court already tossed, argues the case was legally flawed from the start and driven by politics rather than the law. "This case should have never been brought, and the judgment cannot stand," the filing states.
The filing lays out five key reasons the liability finding should fall. First, it argues James lacked the authority to bring the case at all, noting the dispute involves private commercial transactions rather than harm to the public.
Second, Trump's valuations were subjective estimates that sophisticated lenders independently evaluated before choosing to do business with him. "The only supposed 'victims' here are a handful of ultrasophisticated banks and insurers that have never claimed to be injured, were eager to do business with President Trump and his family, and made over $100 million from these transactions," the brief says.
Third, the prosecution's entire premise of overvaluation rests on the flawed idea that real estate has one objective value, and that any deviation from it must be fraud. "Under that breathtakingly broad theory, NYAG can second-guess any business transaction in this State on almost any imagined grounds," the lawyers wrote.
Fourth, the $450 million disgorgement penalty is excessive, unlawful, and unconstitutional. And fifth, the openly political character of the case should have disqualified it from ever reaching a courtroom.
The brief documents James' own words against the president, including repeated public statements branding him a "criminal" and promises to "take on" his business in New York. It also highlights her threats aimed at Trump's family and "anyone in his orbit."
"Ms. James repeatedly called President Trump a 'criminal'; promised to 'investigate President Trump and his business transactions,' 'review ... Trump-related real estate transactions,' and 'take on ... his business in New York'; and threatened President Trump's 'family' and 'anyone in his orbit,'" the filing states.
The lawyers further note that James has never pursued a comparable enforcement action against any other developer in the state. "NYAG cannot point to a single Section 63(12) enforcement action against similarly situated developers (or any other type of defendant) based on practices comparable to those alleged here," they wrote.
The saga began in 2022, when James sued Trump alleging roughly 200 instances of fraud tied to property valuations used to secure loans and insurance. A judge found Trump liable in 2023 and ordered him to pay $355 million plus interest, along with a two-year ban on serving as an officer or director of any New York company and a three-year ban on seeking loans from New York banks.
In August 2025, the Appellate Division, First Department vacated the monetary award, calling the penalty excessive, though it left the underlying fraud finding intact. James then appealed to the Court of Appeals in an effort to bring the penalties back, setting the stage for Wednesday's filing.
Trump's lawyers argue the remaining restrictions and the liability finding itself should also be wiped out, giving the court a chance to end the case entirely.
The Court of Appeals now holds the case's fate. James' office did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the filing.
For Trump, the stakes are significant. A full reversal would erase the last remnants of a case he has long described as politically motivated lawfare designed to damage him and his family. It would also send a clear message to state officials who weaponize enforcement powers against political opponents.
Observers will be watching whether New York's highest court finally puts this case to rest -- and what the outcome says about the limits of using the attorney general's office as a political cudgel.
Trump's lawyers filed a reply brief in the New York Court of Appeals demanding the state's highest court throw out his civil fraud liability finding, arguing the case against him and his family should never have been brought.
freedomlinedispatch.com
