In a recent development that has captured the attention of legal and political circles, the legal representatives of former President Donald Trump have vociferously criticized actions taken by New York Attorney General Letitia James, which they label as “unconstitutional.” These actions are aimed at hindering Trump’s appeal process and compelling the sale of properties due to an impending deadline to secure a $464 million bond in a civil fraud judgment against him.
The controversy stems from a hefty civil fraud judgment amounting to $464 million, against which Trump and his legal cadre have filed an appeal, seeking a stay on the judgment. Their attempts to secure a bond for the full judgment amount have been described as a “practical impossibility,” after reaching out to approximately 30 surety companies without success. This situation underscores the extraordinary nature of the bond requirement, which demands liquidity nearing $1 billion, an unprecedented figure for a private entity.
Attorney General James has countered this move by deeming Trump’s request for a stay as “extraordinary” and “improper.” She suggests that Trump could either secure the bond through multiple sureties or leverage his real estate assets as collateral. Nonetheless, Trump’s attorney, Clifford S. Robert, has sent a rebuttal to the Appellate Division of New York’s Supreme Court, asserting that James’ efforts infringe upon constitutional rights. Robert articulates that forcing the sale of properties, especially under distress (a “fire sale”), to facilitate an appeal, infringes upon the constitutional prohibition against excessive fines and unlawful seizure, causing irreparable harm that could not be undone should the appeal succeed.
Furthermore, Robert contends that the demand to post the full bond amount for the appeal by James and the Supreme Court of New York imposes an unreasonable, unjust, and unconstitutional condition. This condition could cause irreparable damage and preclude any possibility of reviewing the Supreme Court’s decision, which is argued to be deeply flawed.
In response to this situation, Trump and his legal team are considering all available avenues, with a resolve to “exhaust all options.” Despite the uncertainty surrounding the appeal and the potential for asset seizure by the Attorney General if the judgment cannot be met, Trump’s team remains committed to exploring every possible option, prepared for all outcomes.
This legal battle not only highlights the challenges in securing a bond of such magnitude but also brings to light the constitutional debates surrounding the conditions for appealing a court judgment. The outcome of this appeal could have significant implications, not just for Trump, but for the broader legal standards relating to civil fraud judgments and the appeal process.