Over the Top: The Trump-New York Civil Fine Case and the Constitution
The New York Court's $365 million in fines against Trump violate the 8th Amendment bar on "Excessive Fines"
*An abridged version of this article ran in The American Thinker on February 27, 2024.
The Article. On February 16, 2024, a judge in New York State imposed fines totaling just over $360 million on former President Donald J. Trump, The Trump Organization and several related Trump companies and trusts in the civil case brought by the New York Attorney General. President Trump’s sons Donald Trump, Jr., and Eric Trump were fined just over $4 million dollars each. Additional sanctions were imposed by the court, including injunctions against former President Trump, Donald Trump, Jr., and Eric Trump from serving as officers or directors in New York Corporations for specified numbers of years, among other sanctions.
The media reporting on the court’s decision has been massive since the decision was rendered, however, little or no reporting focused on the constitutionality of the fines under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. President Trump and his co-defendants all have substantial 8th Amendment “Excessive Fine” challenges to raise. In fact, a review of the facts and applicable law reveal this decision is simply more election interference.
Background about the Case
The fines stem from a civil suit filed by New York Attorney General Letitia James in 2022. AG James made targeting President Trump a centerpiece of her campaign for New York Attorney General when she ran in 2018, labeling President Trump a con man and an illegitimate president who should be indicted. This is the same radical, extremist New York Attorney General who falsely claimed the National Rifle Association was a terrorist organization and vowed to use New York law to try to dissolve the organization. (This is not your grandparents’ Democrat Party. The New Democrat Party weaponizes the law against political opposition at every opportunity, but that is yet another story.)
In the suit, AG James claimed former President Trump and his companies used falsely inflated asset valuations and misleading financial statements in dealings with lenders. The suit alleges various different claims, chief among them the New York State Executive Law Section 63(12) "fraudulent or illegal acts" claims.
Importantly, the Trump case involved no victims. The court could not order any lender to be paid back or made whole, because the lenders were not only paid back, they all made money on the loans made to Trump. Since the case did not present any victims, the New York judge ordered what is known as disgorgement, that is, to give up “profits.” In this case, the court relied on expert testimony submitted by the State of New York to claim the Trump’s “profits” were lower interest rates on various loans.
On this point the Judge states in his decision:
This reasoning ignores the distinction between recourse loans and non-recourse loans and ignores the fact each lender conducted its own extensive financial analysis and offered interest rates based on that analysis. A good discussion of the court’s error in these regards may be found here, but in simple terms, a “non-recourse loan” is secured only by the property being financed, while in a “recourse” loan the lender has additional ways to get its money back beyond just the property. In this case, President Trump provided personal guarantees for the loans, thus the lenders had “recourse” against him not just the property secured by the loan. He was entitled to a lower interest rate as a result.
The court ordered Trump and his companies to cough up $168 million on supposedly “ill-gotten interest savings” on multiple loans involving several different commercial properties. On this issue the court simply fails to acknowledge the fact “recourse” loans, like those involved in the Trump case, entitle the borrower to lower interest rates. A good discussion of the court’s error in this regard may be found here.
The court also fined former President Trump over $126,000,000 based on his profit from the sale of the “Old Post Office” in Washington, D.C. Trump procured the Old Post Office in 2012 and after remodeling it and turning it into a hotel, the Trump Organization sold its interest in it in 2022 for $375 million. Again, the court ordered “disgorgement” of the profits finding the original $170 million loan obtained by the Trump Organization to finance the purchase and renovation of the property was obtained using false financial statements.
Finally, the court ordered “disgorgement” of some $60 million in profits obtained by Trump on the assignment or sale of a contract on a public golf course in the Bronx called Ferry Point for the same reasons.
The Eighth Amendment Problem
The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides:
The New York court’s ruling ordering the Trumps to pay over $360 million dollars under New York State law likely violates the Eighth Amendment prohibition on “Excessive Fines.”
First, in 2019, The United States Supreme Court held the Eighth Amendment prohibition on "excessive fines" applies to States and not just to actions by the Federal Government. Thus, New York State fines are subject to the Eighth Amendment. Next, while the fines imposed by the New York Court in the Trump case are characterized as “disgorgement,” that is, as the recovery of allegedly ill-gotten profits, the United States Supreme Court and Federal Appellate decisions confirm "disgorgements" are penalties or fines for purposes of Federal law. Thus, the New York Court’s “disgorgement” penalties are subject to an “excessive fine” challenge under the Eighth Amendment.
The United States Supreme Court’s decision in U.S. v. Bajakajian adopted the standard of “gross disproportionality” to Excessive Fines determinations. If the amount of the fine or forfeiture is “grossly disproportional to the gravity of the defendant’s offense, it is unconstitutional.” Importantly, an Excessive Fines challenge is reviewed de novo by the reviewing court. This means the higher court reviews this question without any deference to the lower court’s decision and is free to substitute its judgment for that of the lower court.
As the United States Supreme Court’s decisions instruct, the focus of the “grossly disproportional” inquiry is on the following factors:
Applying the factors outlined by SCOTUS to the New York court’s decision reveals the fines are clearly excessive. There are no victims in the Trump case. No one was harmed. Each and every financial institution involved was fully repaid and made money on their loans. Further, a review of case law in New York demonstrates there simply are no cases ordering a defendant to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in disgorgement without any victim being deprived of anything. Finally, just how “reprehensible” is it to obtain loans and credit facilities and then pay the lenders back, in full, on time in compliance with the agreement? The answer is, not very.
The simple fact of the matter is once again, a court in New York issued yet another political decision masquerading as justice. The fines imposed by this New York court on former President Trump and his sons and businesses are grossly and unconstitutionally excessive. While President Trump and his co-defendants undoubtedly have many defenses to the claims to raise on appeal, chief among them should be a constitutional challenge to these grossly Excessive Fines.
(My new book Fake News Exposed: 25 of the Worst Media Lies about Conservatives, Guns, COVID and Everything Else is out at Amazon. You may also pick up a copy of one of my other books at Amazon as well.)
I bought Fake News Exposed. Then I saw you had a 3 in 1 audiobook. Maybe so should get that one also?
I watch you on Rich Baris’ show. He cracks me up. I could listen to him read the phone book & be entertained.
I ordered your book, the audio version. Thank you!