Former President Donald Trump could face over $563 million in civil penalties from recent court judgments, even if he wins the presidential election in November, according to a new analysis. This development could lead to a complex and unprecedented legal situation involving his assets and financial obligations.
Legal expert Kevin McMunigal from Case Western Reserve University Law School discussed the potential fallout, noting the unusual nature of such a scenario. “It would create a bizarre situation where lawyers might seek to seize his real estate or pursue other aggressive collection actions against a sitting president,” McMunigal remarked, as reported by The Washington Examiner.
Trump’s legal team is set to argue in New York next week against a $5 million penalty awarded to Elle magazine columnist E. Jean Carroll in May 2023. A court had previously found Trump liable for sexually assaulting Carroll in the mid-1990s, a claim he vehemently denies, and for defamation related to comments he made about her during his presidency. Carroll also won a significantly larger judgment of $83 million in a second defamation case due to additional comments made by Trump after leaving office. To stay the enforcement of this judgment, Trump has posted a $91 million bond.
Additionally, Trump’s attorneys are challenging a ruling from Judge Arthur Engeron in another New York case, which found that Trump had inflated the value of his assets to secure more favorable terms on loans and insurance. This ruling could result in Trump owing around $475 million, factoring in interest.
Should the appeals in these cases not go in Trump’s favor, he could be required to pay roughly 15% of his estimated net worth of $4.2 billion. Although the appeals are likely to continue past the November 5 election, collection efforts on the civil penalties might commence later this year.
Legal scholars indicate that Trump’s civil cases could pose a significant risk, potentially more severe than his criminal cases, as there are fewer barriers to collections even if he is re-elected. Historical precedent, such as the 1997 case involving President Bill Clinton and Paula Jones, suggests that a sitting president can be held liable for civil damages related to actions taken before they assumed office. Michael O’Neill of the Landmark Legal Foundation pointed out that these principles could apply to Trump, implying that he might still be required to address these judgments, assuming appeals do not overturn them.