What did appellate courts rule about the Trump University class settlements and evidence use?

1. Appeals court affirmed settlement and rebuffed opt‑out challenge

The Ninth Circuit rejected Sherri Simpson’s bid to opt out after a proposed settlement had been preliminarily approved, holding that allowing her late opt‑out would have derailed the $25 million agreement and that Judge Gonzalo Curiel had ample reason to approve the settlement—thus clearing a major appellate roadblock to payment for class members ^{[1] [2]}. The appellate panel’s unanimous ruling endorsed the district court’s exercise of discretion in approving the deal and effectively enforced the settlement framework negotiated by class counsel and the parties ^{[1] [6]}.

2. Appellate scrutiny focused on procedural fairness, not factual guilt

The core appellate questions revolved around Rule 23 class‑action procedures and due‑process protections—specifically whether class notice and the opportunity to opt out were adequate—not whether Trump University was factually liable for fraud; those substantive issues had already survived earlier stages of litigation when the district court denied summary judgment and found sufficient evidence to send claims to a jury ^{[7] [3]}. Appeals therefore confirmed that the settlement’s mechanics met legal standards for class approval, rather than resolving the underlying truth of the fraud allegations ^{[4] [5]}.

3. District court and appellate findings about recoveries and counsel’s role

Both the district court and later summaries emphasized the settlement’s unusually high estimated recovery for class members—district filings estimated class recoveries in the 80–90 percent range of amounts paid, and class counsel touted recoveries of “90% or greater” in court materials—findings the approvals treated as part of the fairness calculus in accepting the deal ^{[4] [6]}. The district court praised class counsel’s pro bono-like, long‑term prosecution, framing that work as evidence the settlement was not collusive, a factual and credibility assessment the appeals court found no reason to disturb ^{[6] [4]}.

4. Earlier appellate and state rulings preserved plaintiffs’ claims from dismissal

Prior to the settlement appeal, appellate courts had already rebuffed several defense motions: New York appellate courts denied dismissal on statute‑of‑limitations grounds in the state suit, and federal judges denied Trump’s attempts to dispose of the California class cases before trial—decisions that cumulatively left substantial legal and evidentiary momentum behind the plaintiffs’ claims and increased the leverage supporting a global settlement ^{[3] [8]}. Those earlier rulings mattered on appeal because they framed the litigation posture and the risks both sides faced if the cases went forward ^{[3] [8]}.

5. Competing narratives and limits of the record

Defendants continued to deny wrongdoing and publicly asserted they would have prevailed at trial, a narrative noted in reporting and in settlement statements, but the appellate records and district court findings emphasize legal risks and recoveries rather than a definitive adjudication of guilt ^{[1] [6]}. Reporting highlights that one narrow procedural objection—Simpson’s claim that notice deprived her of due process—was central to the appellate dispute, and the Ninth Circuit’s rejection of that objection left payment to class members on track ^{[5] [2]}. The available sources do not provide exhaustive excerpts from the full Ninth Circuit opinion here, so readers should consult the published Simpson v. Trump University opinion for granular legal reasoning beyond the press summaries ^[4].