Sign Up

NCLA Site Search

Amicus Briefs

People of the State of New York against Donald J. Trump, et al.

Back to Case Finder

CASE SUMMARY

NCLA and Professor Philip Hamburger argue a statute being used to prosecute former President Trump for alleged fraud is unconstitutional. Unlike common law fraud, New York Executive Law § 63.12 allows courts to punish defendants—as happened here—simply for making incorrect business statements, regardless of whether any inaccuracy was intentional (i.e., no need to prove mens rea) or whether anyone was harmed as a result.

NCLA has successfully sued the Trump and Biden administrations, but we understand that all Americans—including controversial figures—must equally enjoy the freedom of speech. For that reason, NCLA had § 63.12 in our sights long before the current controversy emerged, as it has been abused before. NY’s Executive Law targets untruths, even immaterial untruths, that are made without bad intent, recklessness, or negligence and do not cause concrete harm to an identifiable third party. This standard runs roughshod over the First Amendment, which, as the Supreme Court has explicitly and repeatedly held, protects mere untruths that do not tangibly harm particular people.

Much more is at stake here than former President Trump’s allegedly inflated real estate valuations. Because
§ 63.12 allows prosecution for all business untruths, including unintentionally false statements, it discourages innocent people from taking the risk of speaking and thus chills truthful speech as well. Progress depends on our willingness to experiment in speech—to try out conclusions that may turn out to be incorrect—making § 63.12’s threat to innocent words later shown to be untrue profoundly dangerous. For this reason, the First Amendment has long protected false speech.

Regrettably, when former President Trump’s lawyers raised elements of this First Amendment argument to the trial court in this case, pointing out that § 63.12 permits punishments for false statements absent fraudulent intent or alleged damages, the court declared their arguments “frivolous,” and it imposed thousands of dollars in sanctions. Penalizing Trump’s attorneys for presenting what is not only a meritorious argument, but should be a winning one, compounded the constitutional problems with this case, violating the Fourteenth Amendment by denying the Defendants due process of law.

OUR TEAM

Philip Hamburger
Chief Executive Officer
Greg Dolin
Senior Litigation Counsel

RELEVANT MATERIALS

NCLA FILINGS

Brief of Amici Curiae New Civil Liberties Alliance and Professor Philip Hamburger in Support of Defendants-Appellants

August 2, 2024 | Read More

PRESS RELEASES

NCLA Amicus Brief in NY Case Against Trump Explains Why NY’s Executive Law Violates Free Speech

August 2, 2024 | Read More

IN THE MEDIA

The Stakes for Speech of Trump’s Civil Verdict

December 12, 2024

RELATED CASES
  • Adir International v. Starr Indemnity and Liability Company

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Case Closed -

    Agencies: California

    View Case
  • American Home Furnishings Alliance, et al. v. U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Scope of Authority / Nondelegation

    The structure of the Constitution allows only Congress to legislate, only the Executive to enforce laws, and only the Judiciary to decide cases. But the Administrative State evades the Constitution’s avenues of governance when executive agencies issue regulations without statutory authorization from Congress.

    Case Closed - June 30, 2023

    Agencies: Consumer Product Safety Commission

    View Case
  • American Honda Motor Co., Inc. v. Walther, Dir., and Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration

    Judicial Deference

    Deference doctrines require judges to defer to an administrative agency’s fact finding, or its interpretation of statutes and regulations. Thus, judges surrender their independent judgment and, where the government is a party, must exhibit systematic bias in the government’s favor, which denies due process of law to the other litigant.

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Case Closed -

    Agencies: Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration

    View Case
  • American Hospital Association, et al. v. Xavier Becerra, et al.

    Judicial Deference

    Deference doctrines require judges to defer to an administrative agency’s fact finding, or its interpretation of statutes and regulations. Thus, judges surrender their independent judgment and, where the government is a party, must exhibit systematic bias in the government’s favor, which denies due process of law to the other litigant.

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Scope of Authority / Nondelegation

    The structure of the Constitution allows only Congress to legislate, only the Executive to enforce laws, and only the Judiciary to decide cases. But the Administrative State evades the Constitution’s avenues of governance when executive agencies issue regulations without statutory authorization from Congress.

    Case Closed - June 15, 2022

    Agencies: Department of Health and Human Services

    View Case
  • American Securities Association and Citadel Securities LLC v. United States Securities and Exchange Commission

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Scope of Authority / Nondelegation

    The structure of the Constitution allows only Congress to legislate, only the Executive to enforce laws, and only the Judiciary to decide cases. But the Administrative State evades the Constitution’s avenues of governance when executive agencies issue regulations without statutory authorization from Congress.

    Administrative Speech Controls

    The Administrative State tries to squelch speech, especially through licensing, speech bans, and speech mandates. Licensing requires one to get the government’s permission prior to speaking. Nothing was more clearly forbidden by the First Amendment than prior restraints on speech, but such controls are now commonplace.

    Unreasonable Searches

    The Fourth Amendment forbids warrantless searches and seizures of information, yet the Administrative State violates this right to privacy through administrative subpoenas and warrants, automated information collection devices, civil investigative demands, and “voluntary” requests for information.

    Conditions on Spending

    Administrative agencies use unconstitutional conditions on spending to regulate the conduct of grantees. Rather than rule through law, the government simply purchases submission.

    Case Active - February 15, 2024

    Agencies: Securities and Exchange Commission

    View Case
  • AMG Capital Management, LLC v. FTC and FTC v. Credit Bureau Center, LLC

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Scope of Authority / Nondelegation

    The structure of the Constitution allows only Congress to legislate, only the Executive to enforce laws, and only the Judiciary to decide cases. But the Administrative State evades the Constitution’s avenues of governance when executive agencies issue regulations without statutory authorization from Congress.

    Case Closed -

    Agencies: Federal Trade Commission

    View Case

SHARE THIS CASE

Enter your email address above to be notified whenever we post a new document to this case.