The defiant vow by Attorney General Letitia James of New York to appeal the dismissal of the $500 million civil fraud judgment she secured against President Trump, his two adult sons, and his family business keeps the pressure on the 47th president even after one of his signature appellate successes. 

Ms. James, an elected Democrat who’s repeatedly denounced Mr. Trump, is herself facing investigations for allegations of criminal mortgage fraud and is also being investigated — by a grand jury upstate —  for possibly violating Mr. Trump’s civil rights in the civil fraud case. With Mr. Trump back in power, federal prosecutors are now circling Ms. James regarding her personal and professional conduct, even as she pushes forward with her case against the Trump Organization.

New York’s top prosecutor can at least take solace in the appellate court’s ruling that Judge Arthur Engoron’s underlying fraud verdict stands — at least for now — even as the punishment has been criticized by the appeals court as unlawfully large, and reversed. 

In a statement Ms. James reiterated that the Trumps are “liable for fraud” and declared, “It should not be lost to history: yet another court has ruled that the president violated the law, and that our case has merit. … We will seek appeal to the Court of Appeals and continue to protect the rights and interests of New Yorkers.” That appeal will be filed at New York’s highest court. 

Mr. Trump crowed that the decision amounted to a “TOTAL VICTORY in the FAKE New York State Attorney General Letitia James Case!” He adds his appreciation that “the Court had the Courage to throw out this unlawful and disgraceful Decision that was hurting Business all throughout New York State … It was a Political Witch Hunt, in a business sense, the likes of which no one has ever seen before.” He called Ms. James “Corrupt and Incompetent” and a “Trump Deranged Lunatic.” 

On Sunday, Mr. Trump weighed in further on the matter of “incompetent” Judge Engoron, writing, “He’s a highly overturned, CROOKED Judge, who is retiring into a life of lawsuits, along with his Chief Clerk, soon! He is almost as Corrupt as Leticia [sic] James, but not quite!”

By “Chief Clerk,” Mr. Trump is referring to Judge Engoron’s sometime principal law clerk, Allison Greenfield. Ms. Greenfield, a Democrat, was elected to a judgeship of her own in November.

Mr. Trump’s claim that Judge Engoron, 77, is retiring has not been confirmed by the judge or by New York’s court system.

The ruling — throwing out the $500 million judgment — of the appellate division of the supreme court of the state of New York is far from straightforward. The ruling unfolds over 323 pages. The five judges rendered three separate decisions, and “none of the three decisions garnered a majority.” The first, from Justices Peter Moulton and Dianne Renwick, ended up being controlling — affirming the verdict but finding the penalty “excessive” and unconstitutional.

The second conclusion, joined by Justices John Higgitt and Justice Llinét Rosado, reckoned that a new trial was the surest way to remedy the excesses of Judge Engoron’s penalty. The third opinion, by Justice David Friedman, reasoned that the case was so flawed that it ought to be dismissed altogether. Mr. Trump wrote on Truth Social: “I am so honored by Justice David Friedman’s great words of wisdom, which should be read by everyone.”

The court noted the “truly extraordinary circumstances here, where none of the writings enjoys the support of a majority,” but concluded that the parties “must have a decision on this matter and, concomitantly, the option of further review of this matter by the Court of Appeals.” Some of the justices noted their “great reluctance” and the “incongruity” of the muddled ruling.  

Judge Friedman marveled that “the result of the appeal is the affirmance of the judgment, albeit as modified to eliminate the disgorgement award.” He likened the result to when, on the gridiron, “a team is awarded a touchdown without crossing the goal line.” The New York court of appeals will have the authority to review every aspect of the case — the verdict and the judgment.

Whichever party loses at New York’s highest state court could game out an appeal to the ultimate authority other than the press — the United States Supreme Court. The Nine are empowered to review “final judgments” issued “by the highest court of a State in which a decision could be had” that raise a federal question. The state court’s finding that the judgment violated the Constitution’s prohibition on “excessive fines” could provide for review just such a federal question.

Ms. James’s appeal would transpire against the gathering legal peril faced by the attorney general of New York herself. Attorney General Pam Bondi has appointed a special attorney for mortgage fraud, Ed Martin, to handle the criminal referral that the Department of Justice received from the director, William Pulte, of the Federal Housing Finance Agency. 

Mr. Pulte is the heir to a housing fortune who has also accused a Democratic senator, Adam Schiff, and a Federal Reserve governor, Lisa Cook, an appointee of President Bide, of lying on mortgage documents. Mr. Schiff and Ms. Cook are also being investigated by Mr. Martin. 

The allegations against Ms. James, whom Mr. Martin encouraged to resign, center on three accusations. The first is that she listed a modest home at Norfolk, Virginia, as her primary residence. The second is that she represented that a five-unit brownstone at Brooklyn’s historic Clinton Hill neighborhood contained only four units. Mr. Martin earlier this month was spotted inspecting that property. Ms. James is also accused of listing her father as her husband on mortgage documents.  

Separately, a grand jury has also approved a subpoena against Ms. James in respect of the same fraud suit that is set for appeal. That investigation, which could yield a civil or criminal case — or neither — appears to be homing in on whether Mr. Trump’s civil rights were wounded by Ms. James’s case. A federal law passed in the wake of Reconstruction makes it a crime for an official to deprive any citizens of their rights “under color of law.”