The looters should probably cool it a bit.
No way this stands.
The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted.”
**The New York court’s ruling ordering the Trumps to pay over $360 million under New York State law likely violates the Eighth Amendment prohibition on “excessive fines.” **
First, in 2019, The United States Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment prohibition on “excessive fines” applies to states, 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,” the United States Supreme Court and federal appellate decisions confirm that “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” in 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:
(1) the degree of the defendant’s reprehensibility or culpability
(2) the relationship between the penalty and the harm to the victim caused by the defendant’s actions
(3) the sanctions imposed in other cases for comparable misconduct
Applying these factors to the New York court’s decision reveals that 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 its loans. Further, a review of case law in New York demonstrates that 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.
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.
The election fraudsters all know this except perhaps for Lecretia James who clearly also has never read Atlas Shrugged.
Good luck with collecting all that loot.
