By Former U.S. President Donald Trump attends the trial of himself, his adult sons, the Trump Organization and others in a civil fraud case brought by state Attorney General Letitia James, at a Manhattan courthouse, in New York City, U.S., October 3, 2023.
Shannon Stapleton | Reuters
The New York Attorney General’s Office on Tuesday rejected a demand from Donald Trump’s lawyer to drop the massive civil business fraud case that has put the president-elect on the hook for more than $480 million in fines.
“This Office will not stipulate to vacate the final judgment already entered by Supreme Court, New York County, in this action or otherwise seek to dismiss the action,” Deputy solicitor general Judith Vale wrote in a letter to Trump defense attorney John Sauer.
She was responding to a Nov. 26 letter in which Sauer urged state Attorney General Letitia James to dismiss the case “for the health of our Republic.”
“President Trump has called for our Nation’s partisan strife to end, and for the contending factions to join forces for the greater good of the country,” Sauer wrote, Fox News reported.
“This call for unity extends to the legal onslaught against him and his family that permeated the most recent election cycle,” the defense lawyer wrote.
Sauer had argued that the continuation of the case, which is currently on appeal, will impede the Republican from carrying out his presidential duties.
But there is “no merit” to that claim, Vale wrote Tuesday. And Trump’s upcoming inauguration, she wrote, “has no bearing” on the outcome of the trial or his ongoing efforts to challenge the judgment.
“Presidents do not have immunity from civil lawsuits arising from unofficial conduct, and such lawsuits may proceed while the President is in office,” Vale wrote in the two-page letter.
For that reason, Vale also brushed off Sauer’s point that prosecutors have dropped or delayed a number of the criminal cases against Trump in the wake of his Nov. 5 victory over Vice President Kamala Harris.
“This civil enforcement action is not a criminal action, and [Manhattan] Supreme Court did not impose any criminal sanction on Mr. Trump or any other defendant,” she wrote.
The decision by special counsel Jack Smith to dismiss his two federal cases against Trump, and the move to indefinitely delay Trump’s criminal hush money case, “are irrelevant here,” Vale wrote.
The civil case, brought in 2022 by James, accused Trump, his two adult sons, his business and key executives within it of falsely inflating Trump’s assets to boost his stated net worth and obtain financial perks.
After finding Trump liable for fraud and holding a bench trial to determine penalties, Manhattan Supreme Court Judge Arthur Engoron in February ordered Trump to pay more than $450 million in fines and interest.
Engoron’s penalty included millions of dollars in prejudgment interest that will accrue by $111,983 every day until it is paid. Based on numbers previously provided by the NY AG’s office, Trump’s total judgment and interest is now more than $486 million.
New York Attorney General Letitia James sits in the courtroom during the civil fraud trial of former President Donald Trump and his children at New York State Supreme Court on November 03, 2023 in New York City.
David Sanders | Getty Images
Trump appealed the fraud verdict in February. A New York appeals court in March shrunk to $175 million the bond amount Trump had to put up to pause the judgment from coming due while he pursued his legal challenge.
During oral arguments in late September, appellate judges questioned whether James had gone too far, Politico reported.
The appeals court has yet to issue a decision.
Sauer in his Nov. 26 letter had argued that the fraud suit’s continued survival “raises ‘grave and doubtful constitutional questions’ … and greatly disserves the national interest.”
Citing existing precedent that prevents criminal proceedings against sitting presidents, Sauer argued, “The same concerns arise from a civil fraud enforcement action, like this one.”
It would be “‘perilous’ to permit such an action to remain pending against a sitting President, because doing so ‘would risk imposing … burdens that would make it impossible for a President to effectively carry out his constitutional duties,'” he wrote.
Vale rejected that argument as meritless.
“The ordinary burdens of civil litigation do not impede the President’s official duties in a way that violates the U.S. Constitution,” she wrote.
“In any event, Mr. Trump does not face any such litigation burdens here,” since the trial is over and the appeal has been fully argued, Vale wrote.
