Trump's $527 Million Civil Fraud Penalty Overturned, But Corporate Ban Upheld.

NEW YORK — A New York appeals court has delivered a mixed ruling in the civil fraud case against President Donald Trump, overturning the massive $527 million financial penalty but upholding a ban that prevents him and his two eldest sons from serving as corporate directors. The decision spares Trump a significant financial blow while affirming the original finding that he engaged in fraud by inflating his assets.

The case was brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James, who accused Trump of overstating his wealth to secure favorable loans and insurance deals. Last year, Justice Arthur Engoron found that Trump and his company repeatedly misrepresented their financial statements and ordered him to pay $355 million in penalties, a figure that grew to $527 million with interest and additional fines against his sons, Eric and Donald Jr.

Appeals Court Calls Fine 'Excessive'

The Appellate Division sided with Trump's legal team on the financial penalty, calling the amount "an excessive fine that violates the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution." In their opinion, Judges Dianne Renwick and Peter Moulton wrote, "While harm certainly occurred, it was not the cataclysmic harm that can justify a nearly half-billion-dollar award."

The prince's death, which occurred at a specialised medical facility in Saudi Arabia, marks the end of a long, emotional chapter that resonated deeply within the Kingdom and beyond.

Despite the setback on the penalty, Attorney General James emphasized her office's victory. "The court affirmed the well-supported finding of the trial court: Donald Trump, his company, and two of his children are liable for fraud," she said in a statement.

Trump celebrated the ruling on social media, declaring it a "total victory" and stating that he "greatly respect[s] the fact that the Court had the courage to throw out this unlawful and disgraceful Decision." His son, Donald Trump Jr., also mocked James, referencing her earlier updates on the fine.

However, the five-judge panel's decision was not unanimous. In a separate opinion, Judge David Friedman, a Republican appointee, accused James of pursuing the case for political reasons. He argued that her ultimate goal was "not 'market hygiene'...but political hygiene, ending with the derailment of President Trump’s political career."

Ban on Corporate Leadership Upheld

Despite the overturned penalty, the appeals court upheld Engoron’s order to temporarily bar Trump, Eric, and Donald Jr. from serving in senior business roles. This enforcement remains on hold as further appeals continue. Trump had previously posted a $175 million bond to prevent the collection of the penalty during the appeals process.

The legal battle may continue, as the ruling leaves the door open for an appeal to New York’s highest court, the Court of Appeals.

Supreme Court Rules in Trump's Favor on DEI Cuts

In a separate legal development, Trump secured a victory in Washington. The U.S. Supreme Court allowed his administration to proceed with sweeping cuts to research grants tied to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. The administration had sought to eliminate $783 million in National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding for studies related to racial minorities, LGBT people, and vaccine hesitancy, labeling them as "low-value" and outside the agency's mission.

The Supreme Court, with its conservative 6-3 majority, lifted a lower court's order that had blocked the cuts, siding with the administration’s argument against funding "gender ideology" and DEI projects. Critics, including public health groups and several Democratic-led states, condemned the move as an "ongoing ideological purge" targeting legitimate scientific research.