AMNA NAWAZ: Welcome to the "News Hour."

A New York appeals court today dismissed# a $500 million civil fraud penalty ag.. President Donald Trump and his companies# for overvaluing their properties and## financial statements.

in the ruling,# the judges upheld the fraud judgment,## but said -- quote -- "The half-a-billion# dollars to the state of New York is an## excessive fine that violates the Eighth# Amendment of the United States Constitution."

GEOFF BENNETT: The case centers on# allegations that Mr. Trump misled## banks and insurers by inflating or# deflating the value of his assets## when it suited him and exaggerated# his net worth by billions of dollars.

New York State Attorney General Letitia# James says she plans to appeal the ruling.

For more on the impact of the decision,# I spoke earlier with former federal## prosecutor Jessica Roth, currently a# professor at Cardozo School of Law.

Jessica Roth, thanks for being# with us.

We appreciate it.

JESSICA ROTH, Yeshiva University# Cardozo School of Law: It's my pleasure.

GEOFF BENNETT: So this was a lengthy ruling,# more tha.. of contention among the judges and how did# their differing opinions shape the outcome?

JESSICA ROTH: Yes, so this was a complicated# split decision.

As you noted, it's over 300 pages,## and we have three opinions.

And the reasoning# of the judges divided two, two and one.

There was one point of commonality among# all the justices.

And that was that the## trial court's order could not stand as it was# written.

But beyond there, we had disagreement## among the justices.

The effect of the decision# of the Appellate Division today is to affirm the## judgment, the verdict against Trump, his sons,# their business associates and their businesses,## finding them liable under New York's civil# fraud law of engaging in persistent fraud.

Two of the justices thought that actually# that finding was supported by the record## and was appropriate under the law.

Two# other justices thought that the record## was problematic and that there were# errors in the conduct of the trial## and would have sent the case back# to the trial court for a new trial.

But those two additional judges who thought# there were problems in the trial decided to## sign on to the judgment of the first# two judge's justices in order to get## the case up to the New York Court of Appeals, the# highest court of New York, for a final decision.

And the effect of those two justices# joining essentially in the decision of## the first two justices is that we now# have a majority effectively affirming## the verdict of liability against# Trump and the other defendants.

GEOFF BENNETT: OK.

So if the appeals court upheld .. nearly half-billion-dollar penalty?

Because,# in theory, fines deter wrongdoing by imposing## financial consequences that outweigh the# potential gains.

And that was the point of## imposing this $500 million fine in the# first place on the Trump Organization.

JESSICA ROTH: So even the two justices who# would have affirmed the finding of liability## based on the record here thought# that the penalty imposed by the## trial court was excessive and# that in fact it violated the## U.S. and New York State Constitution's# protections against excessive fines.

They said that it was just vastly disproportionate# to any harm caused by the defendants.

So although## they would affirm the finding of liability, that# there was a pattern of fraud, they thought that## the remedy for that in terms of the amount# of the penalty or disgorgement of profits,## that that -- or ill-gotten gains,# as articulated by the trial court,## that that was just vastly excessive, so# much so that it was unconstitutional.

But notably the justices who were prepared to# affirm the finding of liability said that the## other remedies imposed by the trial court that# were injunctive in nature, barring the defendants## from holding corporate offices, from making# applications to borrow funds, for example, and## also imposing a monitor, an independent monitor# on the businesses, that those could be affirmed.

So the financial penalties, the# disgorgement, they thought was excessive,## but the other injunctive relief, they# said was actually appropriately tailored## to address the findings of misconduct and# to curb potential wrongdoing in the future.

GEOFF BENNETT: Well, we are all certainly getting# a legal education today as a result of all this.

The president crowed about this ruling# in a post on his social media site,## calling it a total victory.# Is that how you see it?

JESSICA ROTH: I don't see it as a total victory# for the president, because, as I said, the## effect of the ruling is to affirm the finding of# liability.

And two of the justices were prepared## to say and did say in their opinion they thought# that the factual record strongly supported the## finding of persistent fraud by the president, his# sons, his associates, and his business entities.

So I don't think it is a total victory for# the president.

He's still going to have to## go to the New York Court of Appeals to get# that finding of liability overturned if that## is the eventual outcome in this case, so not a# total victory for the president, but, that said,## I would say it's a significant# loss for the attorney general.

GEOFF BENNETT: And, as we mentioned,# the attorney general, Letitia James,## says she will appeal the ruling.

At the same time, President Trump's justice# has launched multiple invest.. part of a broader pattern of retribution against# his perceived political enemies.

What are the## implications of that dynamic, and how might it# affect the likelihood of her appeal succeeding?

JESSICA ROTH: That's very hard to say# how all of those factors will weigh into## the Court of Appeals' deliberations on this# appeal.

I mean, they're going to be looking## at the record here of what happened below# and should not be taking into account the## political machinations on either side, sort of# outside of what transpired in the courtroom.

That said, sort of the politics of this actually# made its way into the opinions here to a certain## extent.

A number of the justices had some choice# words about statements by the attorney general## when she was running for office, effectively sort# of pledging to take on Trump and investigate him,## and suggesting that those were unwise words# and sort of injected a certain amount of## concern into the case, but not to the point,# at least according to most of the justices,## that that would be an independent# reason for setting aside the verdict.

But that's certainly a dynamic# sort of atmospherically, if not## legally, in the case as it goes forward.

GEOFF BENNETT: Well, in a separate matter,# Jessica, a federal judge today said that## President Trump's former personal lawyer# Alina Habba is not legally serving as## the acting U.S. attorney for New Jersey.# So, as best as we know, what happens now?

JESSICA ROTH: Well, now that's going to go up# on appeal as well.

That is something on which## the Third Circuit for the -- the U.S.# Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit,## which has jurisdiction over New# Jersey, is going to weigh in on.

And they will make a determination about whether# the trial court is correct that legally Ms. Habba## is not authorized to serve as the U.S. attorney.# And then I wouldn't be surprised if that went to## the Third Circuit en banc after a panel rules, and# eventually up to the United States Supreme Court.

And New Jersey is not the only jurisdiction# in which we have seen the president engage in## these sort of machinations to make sure that# his hand-chosen individuals and appointees## serve in these functions, when they# have not been accepted by the United## States Senate or by the judges of the district.

GEOFF BENNETT: Jessica Roth, former federal# prosecutor and professor at Cardozo School,## thanks again for being with us.

We appreciate it.

JESSICA ROTH: It's my pleasure.