How did appellate courts rule on the $350–$450 million penalties ordered against Trump in 2024, and what stayed enforcement?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
An appellate panel of New York judges in August 2025 tossed the roughly $350–$450 million monetary disgorgement that Judge Arthur Engoron had ordered against Donald Trump and related defendants, finding the fine excessive and unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment while largely leaving the underlying fraud liability intact [1] [2] [3]. Enforcement of money collection had already been paused during appeals — the defendants posted a reduced $175 million bond and certain court-ordered business restrictions were stayed earlier in the appeal — and the August decision formally voided the half‑billion‑dollar money judgment while prompting Attorney General Letitia James to seek review by New York’s highest court [4] [5] [6].
1. How the appellate court divided on the core monetary penalty
The Appellate Division’s decision was fractured and heavily reasoned: five judges produced a 323‑page disposition made up of concurring and dissenting opinions, and a majority concluded that while the trial court’s finding of fraud had sufficient support, the disgorgement ordered — which had grown to more than $500 million with interest — was constitutionally excessive and therefore could not stand [7] [1] [2]. Multiple judges agreed with aspects of the trial judge’s factual findings but disagreed on how the law should limit remedies, and at least two justices would have ordered a new trial on certain issues rather than an outright forfeiture of the monetary award [8] [3].
2. What the appellate court kept — and what it stayed
Although the appeals court voided the monetary penalty, it did not erase the court’s finding that Trump and other defendants were liable for business fraud; several opinions expressly upheld liability even as they rejected the size or character of the disgorgement remedy [3] [1]. Separately, injunctive relief and corporate‑leadership bans imposed by the trial court had already been put on hold earlier in the appellate process: in March 2024 the Appellate Division had reduced the bond requirement from roughly $464 million to $175 million and stayed certain bans on business operations while the appeal proceeded, and the defendants posted that $175 million bond to secure the appeal [4] [5]. News reporting after the August ruling noted that some nonmonetary provisions remained subject to further litigation and that James planned to seek reinstatement of the monetary award at the state Court of Appeals [1] [6].
3. Practical effect on enforcement and collection
Because the defendants had already posted an appellate bond and because the Appellate Division had paused collection and some injunctive orders during the appeal, there was no immediate collection of the full sum while the case moved through the courts [4] [5]. The August 2025 ruling removed the principal legal avenue for the state to recover the disgorgement amount at that level of the judiciary by voiding the monetary judgment as excessive, effectively reducing the state’s near‑term ability to collect that half‑billion‑dollar figure unless the Court of Appeals reverses the Appellate Division [1] [2] [6].
4. Competing narratives and next steps
Prosecutors framed the decision as a mixed result: vindication of the fraud finding but a setback on the remedy that James had championed during and after the trial [3]. The defense called it a sweeping victory, saying the financial penalty had been overturned [5] [9]. The AG’s office immediately signaled it would seek review in the state Court of Appeals, setting up a likely further round of high‑stakes legal argument over whether the disgorgement violated constitutional limits or whether the Appellate Division misapplied equitable remedies [6]. Observers also noted that the lengthy, textured appellate opinions leave room for differing outcomes on remand or at the state’s highest court because the panel’s fragmentation produced multiple legal rationales [7] [3].
5. Why this matters beyond the dollar figure
The dispute is not merely about one headline number: it tests how far state courts can push equitable remedies in civil fraud cases against powerful defendants, how the Eighth Amendment’s “excessive fines” clause applies to civil disgorgement, and what practical contours appellate stays and bonds produce while litigation continues [2] [1]. The immediate enforcement stays and bond mechanics meant that even before the appellate decision, the state’s ability to seize assets or implement corporate bans was constrained; the appeals court’s ruling now reframes the remedy question for the Court of Appeals and for policy debates about accountability and limits on civil penalties for wealthy defendants [4] [6].