A Texas appeals court on Friday upheld a lower court’s injunction blocking the state from investigating parents who provide their transgender children with gender-affirming medical treatments, which Gov. Greg Abbott has called abusive.
Abbott, a Republican, had ordered the state Department of Family Protective Services to carry out child abuse investigations into families whose children were receiving puberty-blocking treatments in February 2022.
A month later, a district court judge imposed a statewide temporary injunction on such investigations, saying the probes endangered children and their families.
The appeals court in Austin upheld the district court judge’s injunction in a pair of rulings on Friday, delivering a victory to LGBTQ groups, medical professionals and civil liberties advocates opposing moves by conservative politicians in dozens of states to criminalize the provision of gender-affirming treatments for trans youth.
“This is a much-needed victory for trans youth and those who love and support them,” the American Civil Liberties Union said on X on Friday.
Representatives for Abbott and the DFPS did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The ACLU and Lambda Legal challenged Abbott’s order on behalf of the family of a 16-year-old transgender girl targeted for investigation.
The child had taken puberty-delaying medications and hormone therapy. Her mother was a DFPS employee and was put on paid administrative leave after asking what Abbott’s directive would mean for her family.
In 2022, the district court judge said the governor’s order could cause “irreparable injury” to families, given the stigma attached to being targets of a child abuse investigation, as well as the loss of livelihood.
Texas restricted gender-affirming care for youth in 2023, making it one of more than a dozen states that currently bars young transgender people from receiving certain puberty-blockers and hormone therapies, according to the Human Rights Campaign.
For more from NBC Out, sign up for our weekly newsletter.
Former President Donald Trump and eight other defendants accused of illegally trying to interfere in the 2020 election in Georgia on Friday submitted a formal application to appeal a judge’s ruling allowing Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis to remain on the case.
Trump and other defendants had tried to get Willis and her office tossed off the case, saying her romantic relationship with special prosecutor Nathan Wade created a conflict of interest. Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee earlier this month found that there was not a conflict of interest that should force Willis off the case but said that the prosecution was “encumbered by an appearance of impropriety.”
McAfee’s ruling said Willis could continue her prosecution if Wade left the case, and the special prosecutor resigned hours later. Lawyers for Trump and other defendants then asked McAfee to allow them to appeal his ruling to the Georgia Court of Appeals, and he granted that request.
The filing of an application with the appeals court is the next step in that process. The Court of Appeals has 45 days to decide whether it will take up the matter.
The allegations that Willis had improperly benefited from her romance with Wade upended the case for weeks. Intimate details of Willis and Wade’s personal lives were aired in court in mid-February, overshadowing the serious allegations in one of four criminal cases against the Republican former president. Trump and 18 others were indicted in August, accused of participating in a wide-ranging scheme to illegally try to overturn his narrow 2020 presidential election loss to President Biden in Georgia.
Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis looks on during a hearing at the Fulton County Courthouse on March 1, 2024, in Atlanta.
Alex Slitz / Getty Images
The appeal application says McAfee was wrong not to disqualify both Willis and Wade from the case, saying that “providing DA Willis with the option to simply remove Wade confounds logic and is contrary to Georgia law.”
Steve Sadow, Trump’s lead attorney in the case, said in a statement that the case should have been dismissed and “at a minimum” Willis should have been disqualified from continuing to prosecute it. He said the Court of Appeals should grant the application and consider the merits of the appeal.
A spokesperson for Willis declined to comment.
Willis used Georgia’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations, or RICO, law, an expansive anti-racketeering statute, to charge Trump and the 18 others. Four people charged in the case have pleaded guilty after reaching deals with prosecutors. Trump and the others have pleaded not guilty.
McAfee clearly found that Willis’ relationship with Wade and his employment as lead prosecutor in the case created an appearance of impropriety, and his failure to disqualify Willis and her whole office from the case “is plain legal error requiring reversal,” the defense attorneys wrote in their application.
Given the complexity of the case and the number of defendants, the application says, multiple trials will likely be necessary. Failure to disqualify Willis now could require any verdicts to be overturned, and it would be “neither prudent nor efficient” to risk having to go through “this painful, divisive, and expensive process” multiple times, it says.
In his ruling, McAfee cited a lack of appellate guidance on the issue of disqualifying a prosecutor for forensic misconduct, and the appeals court should step in to establish such a precedent, the lawyers argue.
Finally, the defense attorneys argued, it is crucial that prosecutors “remain and appear to be disinterested and impartial” to maintain public faith in the integrity of the judicial system.
Lawyers for former President Donald Trump and eight of his co-defendants in the Georgia election interference case on Friday asked a state appeals court to allow them to challenge a recent ruling that didn’t disqualify Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis from prosecuting the case.
“The Georgia Court of Appeals should grant the application and accept the interlocutory appeal for consideration on the merits,” Steve Sadow, Trump’s lead attorney in Georgia, told NBC News in a statement Friday.
Willis’ office declined NBC News’ request for comment.
The application comes after Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee gave Trump and the others permission to seek a review from the Georgia Court of Appeals of McAfee’s decision not to disqualify Willis and her office and dismiss the charges in the sprawling racketeering case.
In a motion originally filed by Trump co-defendant Michael Roman, and later adopted by Trump and others, Willis is accused of financially benefitting from a personal relationship she had with Nathan Wade, a special prosecutor she’d appointed to the case. The motion alleged Willis and Wade took vacations together while working on the case.
Willis and Wade denied any wrongdoing. They acknowledged they’d been in a relationship, but they maintained that it began after his appointment as special prosecutor and that Willis did not benefit financially.
In a decision earlier this month, McAfee found no conflict of interest but said because of an “appearance of impropriety,” either Willis and her office would have to step aside, or Wade.
Wade resigned shortly after McAfee’s ruling — but, Sadow noted, the defense wanted the order to go further.
“Defendants argues in the trial court that the indictment should have been dismissed and, at a minimum, DA Willis and her office should have been disqualified from prosecuting the case,” Sadow’s statement said.
Trump has pleaded not guilty in the case, which alleges he conspired with others to overturn the 2020 election results in the state.
With the request officially filed, the appeals court has 45 days to decide whether to take up the case. McAfee has said he will not halt proceedings in the Georgia case as the disqualification matter makes its way through the appeals court.
ATLANTA — A panel of judges heard arguments Wednesday from attorneys seeking to overturn the hate crime conviction of three white men who used pickup trucks to chase Ahmaud Arbery through a subdivision in Georgia in 2020 before one of them killed the Black man with a shotgun. Gregory McMichael; his son, Travis McMichael, and their neighbor, William “Roddie” Bryan, were found guilty of murder in a Georgia state court in November 2021. They were sentenced to life in prison After a federal trial, they were found guilty of hate crimes and other charges in February 2022. They did not appear in court Wednesday.
From left, Gregory McMichael, William “Roddie” Bryan and Travis McMichael during their trial at Glynn County Superior Court in Brunswick, Ga.Pool
The hate crimes trial centered on the three men’s racial bias — a motive that prosecutors in the state case largely avoided. Arbery’s family and civil rights leaders have likened his death to a modern-day lynching. His death, along with the killings of Breonna Taylor and George Floyd at the hands of police in 2020, ignited furor over the shooting deaths of Black people and sparked international protests against racial injustice.
In a legal brief filed ahead of Wednesday’s arguments, prosecutors said: “As to why defendants chased, trapped, and ultimately killed Arbery, the evidence at trial showed that they held longstanding hate and prejudice toward Black people, while also supporting vigilante justice.”
The three men’s attorneys argue that evidence of past racist comments they made didn’t prove a racist intent to harm.
The attorneys also argued that the hate crime conviction should be thrown out because Arbery was not killed on a public street, which they said is required for the defendants to be found guilty under federal law.
Travis McMichael’s appeals attorney Amy Lee Copeland said Wednesday before the judges from the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and in an earlier legal brief, that prosecutors had not proven that the streets of the Satilla Shores neighborhood where Arbery was killed were public roads, as the men’s indictment charged.
Judge Elizabeth Branch responded that a county official in Glynn County, where the neighborhood is, testified that the streets in Satilla Shores are officially designated public streets.
A.J. Balbo, Gregory McMichael’s attorney, said his client pursued Arbery because he had seen Arbery on a security camera video, not simply because he was Black. Balbo conceded that Gregory McMichael’s actions displayed “a hypervigilantism.” Before he was killed, Arbery was recorded on security camera videos entering a neighboring home under construction on multiple occasions. None of the videos showed him stealing.
Bryan’s attorney, Pete Theodocion, challenged the attempted kidnapping charge that all three men were convicted of. The government, he said, had to prove that the defendants attempted to confine Arbery against his will and hold him for a benefit.
“You have to be acting out of a want of a personal benefit,” he said, as he argued that the three men went after Arbery to protect the community from someone they believed had committed a crime.
“The benefit here I think the government alleged was vigilantism, the jury apparently decided that that among other things was the case,” Judge Britt Grant responded.
Branch told Theodocion that she was not sure why a benefit that extends to the community would not also include the defendants, as they were members of the community.
Prosecutor Brant Levine urged the judges to uphold the hate crime convictions.
“I’d like to begin by focusing on what this case is really about, that Mr. Arbery would be alive today had he not been a Black man running on the streets of Satilla Shores,” he said.
Levine said that there is sufficient evidence to support each guilty verdict and that the defendants would not have acted criminally had they merely questioned Arbery if they believed he looked suspicious in their neighborhood.
“Had the McMichaels driven up to Ahmaud and said, ‘Excuse me, can we talk to you about what you were doing in that house?,’ We wouldn’t be here today,” Levine said. “We’re here today because when they went up to Ahmaud, they pulled out their guns, they yelled at him to get on the ground and they chased him. Roddie Bryan blocked his exit from the neighborhood, so he couldn’t leave until, in Greg McMichael’s words, they trapped him like a rat.”
He added: “Why did they take those extreme measures? Why did they terrorize Ahmaud for nearly five minutes?”
Levine also argued that prosecutors had proven that Arbery was killed on public roads.
About three dozen people, including members of Arbery’s family and others from the community, attended a rally outside the courthouse to protest the appeal.
“This hate crimes conviction is so important because it’s the first federal hate crimes conviction in the state of Georgia,” Gerald Griggs, president of Georgia NAACP, said in an interview after the rally. “And so we need to make sure we underscored the reason why people were protesting, the reason why we marched and we voted.”
Marcus Arbery thanked those who had supported his family since his son’s death. Arbery’s aunt, Diane Jackson, said the appeal had reignited pain for her family.
“I am so hurt still because when we saw what happened at first, we thought this would be over with now,” she said. “The way they took my nephew’s life, this has destroyed my family.”
On Feb. 23, 2020, Gregory McMichael and Travis McMichael armed themselves and pursued Arbery in a pickup truck after they saw him running through their neighborhood in Brunswick. Bryan joined the chase in a separate pickup truck and recorded cellphone video of Travis McMichael shooting Arbery in the street.
After the video leaked online, it thrust the case into the national spotlight and the Georgia Bureau of Investigation took over the case from local police. The video drew widespread outrage and raised concerns about why it took law enforcement officials more than two months to make arrests.
The appellate judges did not say when they would rule. If the U.S. appeals court overturns any of their federal convictions, the McMichaels and Bryan would remain in prison.
Appeals court keeps Texas immigration law on hold – CBS News
Watch CBS News
A panel of judges from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals is keeping a controversial Texas immigration law known as SB4 on hold while the court considers whether the measure is lawful and constitutional. CBS News immigration reporter Camilo Montoya-Galvez has the latest.
Be the first to know
Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.
Attorneys are asking a U.S. appeals court to throw out the hate crime convictions of three White men who used pickup trucks to chase Ahmaud Arbery through the streets of a Georgia subdivision before one of them killed the running Black man with a shotgun.
A panel of judges from the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta was scheduled to hear oral arguments Wednesday in a case that followed a national outcry over Arbery’s death. The men’s lawyers argue that evidence of past racist comments they made didn’t prove a racist intent to harm.
On Feb. 23, 2020, father and son Greg and Travis McMichael armed themselves with guns and drove in pursuit of Arbery after spotting the 25-year-old man running in their neighborhood outside the port city of Brunswick. A neighbor, William “Roddie” Bryan, joined the chase in his own truck and recorded cellphone video of Travis McMichael shooting Arbery in the street.
More than two months passed without arrests, until Bryan’s graphic video of the killing leaked online and the Georgia Bureau of Investigation took over the case from local police. Charges soon followed.
All three men were convicted of murder in a Georgia state court in late 2021. After a second trial in early 2022 in federal court, a jury found the trio guilty of hate crimes and attempted kidnapping, concluding the men targeted Arbery because he was Black.
Ahmaud Arbery.
Family Handout
In legal briefs filed ahead of their appeals court arguments, lawyers for Greg McMichael and Bryan cited prosecutors’ use of more than two dozen social media posts and text messages, as well as witness testimony, that showed all three men using racist slurs or otherwise disparaging Black people. The slurs often included the use of the N-word and other derogatory terms for Black people, according to an FBI witness who examined the men’s social media pages. The men had also advocated for violence against Black people, the witness said.
Bryan’s attorney, Pete Theodocion, said Bryan’s past racist statements inflamed the trial jury while failing to prove that Arbery was pursued because of his race. Instead, Arbery was chased because the three men mistakenly suspected he was a fleeing criminal, according to A.J. Balbo, Greg McMichael’s lawyer.
Greg McMichael initiated the chase when Arbery ran past his home, saying he recognized the young Black man from security camera videos that in prior months showed him entering a neighboring home under construction. None of the videos showed him stealing, and Arbery was unarmed and had no stolen property when he was killed.
Prosecutors said in written briefs that the trial evidence showed “longstanding hate and prejudice toward Black people” influenced the defendants’ assumptions that Arbery was committing crimes.
“All three of these defendants did everything they did based on assumptions — not on fact, not on evidence, on assumptions. They make decisions in their driveways based on those assumptions that took a young man’s life,” prosecutor Linda Dunikoski said in court in November 2021.
Three men found guilty of hate crimes in the death of Ahmaud Arbery
02:18
In Travis McMichael’s appeal, attorney Amy Lee Copeland didn’t dispute the jury’s finding that he was motivated by racism. The social media evidence included a 2018 Facebook comment Travis McMichael made on a video of Black man playing a prank on a white person. He used an expletive and a racial slur after he wrote wrote: “I’d kill that …. .”
Instead, Copeland based her appeal on legal technicalities. She said that prosecutors failed to prove the streets of the Satilla Shores subdivision where Arbery was killed were public roads, as stated in the indictment used to charge the men.
Copeland cited records of a 1958 meeting of Glynn County commissioners in which they rejected taking ownership of the streets from the subdivision’s developer. At the trial, prosecutors relied on service request records and testimony from a county official to show the streets have been maintained by the county government.
Attorneys for the trio also made technical arguments for overturning their attempted kidnapping convictions. Prosecutors said the charge fit because the men used pickup trucks to cut off Arbery’s escape from the neighborhood.
Defense attorneys said the charge was improper because their clients weren’t trying to capture Arbery for ransom or some other benefit, and the trucks weren’t used as an “instrumentality of interstate commerce.” Both are required elements for attempted kidnapping to be a federal crime.
From left: Gregory McMichael, Travis McMichael and William “Roddie” Bryan are seen during their trial in Brunswick, Georgia. All three were convicted of murder in the death of Ahmaud Arbery.
AP
Prosecutors said other federal appellate circuits have ruled that any automobile used in a kidnapping qualifies as an instrument of interstate commerce. And they said the benefit the men sought was “to fulfill their personal desires to carry out vigilante justice.”
The trial judge sentenced both McMichaels to life in prison for their hate crime convictions, plus additional time — 10 years for Travis McMichael and seven years for his father — for brandishing guns while committing violent crimes. Bryan received a lighter hate crime sentence of 35 years in prison, in part because he wasn’t armed and preserved the cellphone video that became crucial evidence.
All three also got 20 years in prison for attempted kidnapping, but the judge ordered that time to overlap with their hate crime sentences.
If the U.S. appeals court overturns any of their federal convictions, both McMichaels and Bryan would remain in prison. All three are serving life sentences in Georgia state prisons for murder, and have motions for new state trials pending before a judge.
A federal appeals court early on Wednesday extended its hold on a new Texas immigration law, meaning the measure cannot go into effect while litigation continues.
A three-judge panel of the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on a 2-1 votesaid in a decision issued overnightthat the statute, known as Senate Bill 4, should remain blocked. The same court temporarily froze the law March 19, just hours after the Supreme Court said it could go into effect.
“For nearly 150 years, the Supreme Court has held that the power to control immigration — the entry, admission, and removal of noncitizens—is exclusively a federal power,” Judge Priscilla Richman wrote for the majority.
She cited in part a 2012 Supreme Court ruling that invalided a similar law in Arizona.
Whatever the state’s criticisms about the federal government’s “actions and inactions” on immigration, it is the president’s role “to decide whether, and if so, how to pursue noncitizens illegally present in the United States,” Richman wrote.
The state law would allow police to arrest migrants suspected of illegally crossing the border from Mexico and impose criminal penalties. It would also empower state judges to order people to be deported to Mexico.
The dispute is the latest clash between the Biden administration and Texas over immigration enforcement on the U.S.-Mexico border.
Texas could potentially now ask the Supreme Court to allow the law to go into effect. In the meantime, the appeals court holds another hearing on April 3.
Richman and Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez voted to block the law. Judge Andrew Oldham voted for it to go into effect.
Richman and Oldham are both Republican appointees, while Ramirez was appointed by President Joe Biden.
It was the same lineup of judges that issued the temporary block.
Oldham wrote a lengthy dissenting opinion saying the law should not be blocked in full because of hypothetical concerns about how it would be enforced.
Because of the federal government’s struggles to control immigration, “the state is forever helpless” to respond if it cannot legislate on the issue, he said.
“Texas can do nothing because Congress apparently did everything, yet federal non-enforcement means Congress’s everything is nothing,” Oldham wrote.
A federal judge blocked the law after the Biden administration sued, but the appeals court initially said in a brief order that it could go into effect March 10 if the Supreme Court declined to intervene. In the meantime, the appeals court delayed a decision on whether to impose a more permanent block during Texas’ appeal.
The Supreme Court initially put the law on hold while it determined what steps to take, but on March 19 said it would allow the measure to go into effect, with the understanding that the appeals court would act quickly on the underlying case.
The Supreme Court’s order prompted alarm among immigrant rights activists amid confusion on the ground about whether the law could be enforced immediately.
The appeals court appeared to get the message and immediately imposed the new hold on the law while it considered Texas’ appeal of the district court injunction.
A panel of federal appeals court judges late Tuesday continued to block Texas from arresting and jailing migrants under a contentious state immigration law known as SB4, keeping a hold on the measure while it weighs its legality.
In a 2-1 decision, the panel of 5th Circuit Court of Appeals judges denied Texas’ request to suspend the lower court order that found SB4 unconstitutional and in conflict with federal immigration laws.
Pending further court action, Texas will continue to be prohibited from enforcing SB4, which would criminalize unauthorized immigration at the state level. The 5th Circuit has a hearing next week, on April 3, to consider the question of whether SB4 is lawful and constitutional.
Texas is defending SB4 from legal challenges filed by the Justice Department and two groups that advocate on behalf of migrants.
Passed by the Texas legislature last year, SB4 would create state crimes for entering or reentering the state from Mexico outside an official port of entry. These actions are already illegal under federal law.
Law enforcement officials, at the state, county and local level, would be authorized to stop, jail and prosecute migrants suspected of violating these new state criminal statutes. SB4 would also allow state judges to order migrants to return to Mexico as an alternative to continuing their prosecution.
Texas officials, including Gov. Greg Abbott, have touted the strict law as a necessary tool to combat illegal immigration. Accusing the Biden administration of not doing enough to deter migrants from coming to the U.S. illegally, Abbott has mounted an aggressive state border operation, busing tens of thousands of migrants to major cities and fortifying areas near the Rio Grande with razor wire, barriers and National Guard troops.
In an aerial view, an immigrant faces coils of razor wire after crossing the Rio Grande from Mexico on March 17, 2024 in Eagle Pass, Texas.
John Moore/Getty Images
But SB4 has garnered withering criticism from migrant advocates, the Biden administration and the Mexican government, which has denounced the Texas law as “anti-immigrant” and vowed to reject migrants returned by the state.
In its lawsuit against SB4, the Biden administration has argued the state measure jeopardizes diplomatic relations with Mexico, ignores U.S. asylum law and obstructs immigration enforcement, a longstanding federal responsibility.
Two judges on the 5th Circuit panel appeared to agree with the Biden administration’s arguments.
“For nearly 150 years, the Supreme Court has held that the power to control immigration—the entry, admission, and removal of noncitizens—is exclusively a federal power,” Chief 5th Circuit Judge Priscilla Richman wrote in the majority opinion on Tuesday.
“Despite this fundamental axiom, S. B. 4 creates separate, distinct state criminal offenses and related procedures regarding unauthorized entry of noncitizens into Texas from outside the country and their removal,” she added.
Camilo Montoya-Galvez
Camilo Montoya-Galvez is the immigration reporter at CBS News. Based in Washington, he covers immigration policy and politics.
JAKARTA, Indonesia (AP) — Indonesia’s top court began hearing appeals Wednesday against the presidential election results lodged by two losing candidates who allege widespread irregularities and fraud at the polls, demanding a revote.
The Feb. 14 presidential election results were announced March 20. The winner, Defense Minister Prabowo Subianto, received more than 96 million votes, or 58.6%, according to the General Election Commission, known as KPU.
Former Jakarta Gov. Anies Baswedan, who received nearly 41 million votes, or 24.9%, filed a complaint with the Constitutional Court on March 21, a day after the official results announcement. Another candidate, former Central Java Gov. Ganjar Pranowo, who was backed by the governing Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle, received the smallest share of votes at 27 million, or 16.5%. His legal team filed a complaint to the court on March 23.
Baswedan’s lawsuit claimed that irregularities occurred before, during and after the election that resulted in Subianto’s victory, and his legal team will reveal its evidence and arguments in the court hearings.
Subianto chose as his running mate Gibran Rakabuming Raka, the son of the popular outgoing president Joko Widodo. The Constitutional Court had made an exception to the minimum age requirement of 40 for candidates. Baswedan and Pranowo both criticized 37-year-old Raka’s participation in the election.
Anwar Usman, who was the court’s chief justice when the exception was made, is Widodo’s brother-in-law. An ethics panel later forced Usman to resign for failing to recuse himself and for making last-minute changes to the candidacy requirements, but allowed him to remain on the court as long as he does not participate in election-related cases.
The election complaints were heard separately Wednesday by the court, where Baswedan had the first turn in the morning and Pranowo was slated in the afternoon.
“We witness with deep concern a series of irregularities that have tarnished the integrity of our democracy,” Baswedan told the court. He specifically pointed to the court’s decision allowing Raka to run despite the previously established criteria.
He said there are also disturbing practices where regional officials are pressured or given rewards to influence the direction of political choices, as well as misuse of the state’s social assistance, which is actually intended for people’s welfare, “is instead used as a transactional tool to win one of the candidates.”
“If we do not make corrections, the practices that occurred yesterday will be considered normal and become habits, then become culture and ultimately become national character,” Baswedan said before the eight-judge panel. “The Indonesian people are waiting with full attention, and we entrust all this to the Constitutional Court who is brave and independent to uphold justice.”
The verdict, expected on April 22, cannot be appealed. It will be decided by eight justices instead of the full nine-member court because Usman is required to recuse himself.
In the past two elections, the Constitutional Court has rejected Subianto’s bids to overturn Widodo’s victories and dismissed his claims of widespread fraud as groundless. Subianto refused to accept the results of the 2019 presidential election, which pitted him against Widodo, leading to violence that left seven dead in Jakarta.
Widodo has reached his term limit and could not run again this year. He has faced criticism for throwing his support behind Subianto, who has links to alleged human rights abuses. Indonesian presidents are expected to remain neutral in elections to replace them.
Hefty social aid from the government was disbursed in the middle of the campaign — far more than the amounts spent during the COVID-19 pandemic. Widodo distributed funds in person in a number of provinces, in a move that drew particular scrutiny.
A state appeals court ruled that Donald Trump and his co-defendants in the New York civil fraud case have 10 days to post a $175 million bond, down from the $464 million judgment that was originally due Monday.
The 11th-hour ruling from a panel of state Appellate Division judges is a major victory and relief for the former president, whose attorneys had said coming up with the larger bond was a “practical impossibility.” The ruling also means state Attorney General Letitia James’ office cannot yet begin collecting on the judgment.
Before Monday’s ruling, Trump was liable for $454 million, most of the fraud judgment, but the amount he owed had been increasing by more than $111,000 a day because of added interest.
Trump claimed on social media Friday that he had nearly $500 million in cash that he had planned to use toward his 2024 presidential campaign. The former president, however, hasn’t used his own money toward his presidential campaigns since 2016.
He had also floated the idea last week of mortgaging or selling off his properties, saying he would be forced to do so at “Fire Sale prices.”
His lawyers noted in court filings that bond companies typically “require collateral of approximately 120% of the amount of the judgment” — which in this case would total about $557 million.
Trump’s lawyers said in one filing a week ago that they hadn’t been able at that point to secure a bond, and believed it was “a practical impossibility.” They said that they approached 30 surety companies through four separate brokers, trying to negotiate with the world’s largest insurance companies.
The other bond companies will not “accept hard assets such as real estate as collateral,” but “will only accept cash or cash equivalents (such as marketable securities),” his lawyers said.
Trump’s lawyers had asked the state appeals court to either reduce the amount of money he had to post or stay the award without him posting any security while he appeals Engoron’s order.
The decision Monday also puts a stay on the part of the original judgment that barred Trump from serving as a public officer of a company, as well as the prohibitions placed on Weisselberg, McConney, Donald Trump Jr. And Eric Trump.
The court did not grant requests from Trump to prohibit the independent monitor or installing an independent director of compliance. The court also did not stay the provision prohibiting the defendants from borrowing from a financial institution registered or chartered in New York state.
The AG’s office brushed off Monday’s ruling in a statement, saying: “Donald Trump is still facing accountability for his staggering fraud. The court has already found that he engaged in years of fraud to falsely inflate his net worth and unjustly enrich himself, his family, and his organization. The $464 million judgment — plus interest — against Donald Trump and the other defendants still stands.”
Trump celebrated the ruling in a post on Truth Social, attacking Engoron and reiterating that he believes he did nothing wrong. Speaking to reporters outside an unrelated hearing in his New York criminal case, he called Engoron “a disgrace to this country.”
Alina Habba, the former president’s lawyer in the civil fraud case, said in a statement, “We are extremely pleased with the ruling issued by the Appellate Division. This monumental holding reigns in Judge Engoron’s verdict, which is an affront to all Americans. This is the first important step in fighting back against Letitia James and her targeted witch hunt against my client which started before she ever stepped foot in office.”
On Friday, Trump told Fox News he’d appeal Engoron’s ruling “all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary.” He must first go through the state appeals court process before he can bring that challenge before the justices.
Trump has valued his brand at over $10 billion, but a 2021 financial statement put his net worth $4.5 billion. He has said that most of his assets are in real estate — not cash or stock — saying at a deposition in the fraud case last year, that he had “substantially in excess of $400 million in cash.”
Trump may have some financial relief coming in the near future.
On Friday, shareholders in Digital World Acquisition Corp. voted to approve a merger with the former president’s Trump Media & Technology Group, the private firm that owns his social media platform Truth Social.
Shares in the newly combined company, Trump Media, could begin to be publicly traded this week, and Trump would have nearly 80 million shares, estimated to be worth around $3 billion.
Under the terms of the merger, Trump is prohibited from selling shares in the merged company for at least six months, but the board of directors, which will likely include his eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., could vote to allow him to sell shares earlier than that.
