Does anyone here have a legal opinion how the Supremes would come to get involved in a hurry here? What is Presidrnt Trumps likely path to petition them to review and intervene hastily here? Or does he have to suffer more and twist in the wind a while before they might be in a position to review it?
I think he has filed the appeal in the state appellate court first on 2 grounds a) that he should not have been found liable for a number of reasons and b) even if found liable the judgement amount is excessive and should be reduced. These appeals will not be resolved overnight and will take months and perhaps a year or two if he has to move to the Federal appellate courts and ultimately the US SC to pursue the constitutional due process issue and 8th amendment extreme cruelty issue once he exhausts appeals in the state appellate courts. The good thing is once he posts the bond for the judgement amount, he will not be financially pressed and he can take his time pursuing them during his Presidency
I don’t know if the USSC can get involved in a hurry. I’m not a lawyer, but I would guess Trump has to exhaust all state options before going federal. And then going federal it has to go to the circuit court before asking the SC to step in. But check with a real lawyer.
That said there was a case I saw from 2019. A heroin dealer was busted in Indiana. He pleaded guilty. The maximum fine for the crime was $10,000 but the court imposed on him apx $1,500 fine. But the state also wanted to take his $42,000 car. They did this under Civil Forfeiture it was not a criminal offense. That is key here. The drug dealer appealed and the IN supreme out agreed with the drug dealer. The taking of his $42,000 car in civil forfeiture was far in excess of the actual fine, and the maximum possible fine. The state appealed their own court and it went to the USSC.
The USSC also sided 9-0 with the drug dealer. Though they were split on the reason they all agreed. RBG said it was an 8th amendment issue. Thomas and Gorsuch said it was a 14th amendment issue. But they all agreed on the answer just different ways to get there. They said the fine was excessive. But what was interesting is that the court went out of their way to say the reason we have these protections goes back to English Common Law, and that excessive fines could be used in a vindictive manner to punish political opposition. That is why it is prohibited. So here we have a case where a prosecutor said she was going to get Trump during her campaign, then she went after him using a very unique reading of a Civil, not criminal statute. There were no victims. This law has never been used before to go after anyone for this type of rationale and even the governor said “don’t worry this is just about Trump not other New Yorkers. There is even a question whether this law even applies here as it was a consumer protection law. There are plenty of other issues eg Trump didn’t even get to put on a defense, because it was a Civil not a criminal statute. The court ruled against Trump before even hearing his side he was only allowed to argue about the amount of the fine. And the judge granted 100% of what James asked. It was clearly a political railroad.
So I think Trump has plenty to go after in federal court. But I do think he first needs to exhaust his state options and then go to circuit court and then, if he loses, appeal to the supremes.