A letter sent to New York’s attorney general, Letitia James, by President Trump’s nominee for Solicitor General of the United States, John Sauer, underscores the unsettled nature of the civil cases against the president-elect less than two months before his inauguration.

Mr. Sauer, who argued before the Supreme Court the landmark immunity case of Trump v. United States, wrote the missive to Ms. James urging her to dismiss the more than $450 million fraud verdict she secured against Trump, his business, and two of his adult sons for overvaluing their properties. The president-elect appealed that ruling.

Mr. Sauer, who if confirmed would be the government’s advocate before the Nine, here addresses himself to, in Ms. James, an elected prosecutor who has called Trump an “illegitimate president” and a “con man.” After his reelection earlier this month, Ms. James declared that she is “prepared to fight back” against his administration.

Polling shows Ms. James behind only Governor Cuomo among candidates to succeed Mayor Adams. Ms. James campaigned for her current office on a promise to  investigate Trump and his businesses, a vow she kept by pouring significant state resources into the case over two years.

Trump’s team calls the civil fraud finding secured by Ms. James from Judge Arthur Engoron a “flashpoint of national partisan division” and asserts that it is “necessary for the health of our Republic for the strife and lawfare to end.” Mr. Sauer offers Ms. James the “singular opportunity to help cure this division” by pulling out of what he calls the “legal onslaught” against the president-elect. 

Mr. Sauer suggests that Ms. James could follow Mr. Smith’s lead in requesting that her case be dismissed — albeit “with prejudice,” meaning that it cannot be resurrected at a later date. Mr. Smith’s motions to dismiss both his cases make clear that his decision to give up was hardly “voluntary,” as Mr. Sauer describes it.

The special counsel blamed “circumstances” and noted that the Office of Legal Counsel’s “interpretation of constitutional questions such as those raised here is binding on Department prosecutors.” The OLC determined that there is a “categorical” prohibition against prosecuting a sitting president.

Ms. James’s case — like the assault and defamation judgments against Trump in the E. Jean Carroll case  — is a civil one and not a criminal one. The Supreme Court, in Clinton v. Jones, ruled that sitting presidents are not immune from civil action while in office. That means that the attorney general’s litigation, unlike Mr. Smith’s, could stretch past January 20. 

Mr. Sauer attempts to elide that difference, arguing that the logic of presidential immunity from criminal action also informs the  concerns that “arise from a civil fraud enforcement action, like this one, where six of the seven causes of action are based on alleged violations of criminal law.” The attorney also reckons that the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause “prevents state prosecutors from proceeding against the sitting President in any way.”

That question has never been fully briefed, although District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who secured in his hush money case some 34 criminal convictions against Trump, wants Judge Juan Merchan to consider “non-dismissal options” to keep that verdict  — and sentencing — in “abeyance” for the next four years. Mr. Bragg faces voters next year, and he’s favored for reelection. Trump contends that his own reelection this month mandates dismissal.

Judge Engoron reached his verdict on summary judgment — before the bench trial even began. The penalty phase of the trial was so lopsided that it was soon apparent to courtroom cognoscenti that the matter would be decided on appeal. 

The verdict could be in trouble, for reasons that have nothing to do with Trump’s electoral success. New York’s initial appeals court, the Appellate Division, First Department, appeared skeptical of Judge Engoron’s ruling. The Sun reported that in oral arguments last month, “several of the appeals court judges appeared skeptical of the verdict.”

One justice, Peter Moulton, ventured that the “immense penalty in this case is troubling.” Another jurist reckoned that the fraudulent evaluations for which Trump was found liable resembled less a fraudulent scheme than “a commercial dispute.” Mr. Sauer calls Trump “one of the most successful developers in the history of New York” and warns that the “chilling effect generated by this case is crushing to businesses across New York.”

Mr. Sauer avers that Ms. James’s case “involves no victims, no complaints, no misstatements, no causation, and no injuries or losses.” The relevant fraud statute, though, is a favorite of prosecutors because it does not require them to prove that there was fraudulent intent or that anyone was financially harmed. Mr. Sauer cites “unrebutted expert testimony” that Mar-a-Lago is worth more than $1.2 billion. Judge Engoron valued it at between $18 million and $27.6 million. Some individual Manhattan apartments cost more. 

Trump was particularly irked by what he perceived as the severe under-valuation of Mar-a-Lago. He was equally irked that Judge Engoron gagged him from criticizing his principal law clerk, Allison Greenfield, who sat beside the judge on the bench and whom the defense accused of “co-judging” and “rolling her eyes.” Judge Engoron fined Trump for his attacks on Ms. Greenfield, who was elected this month to a judgeship of her own.

Neither Mr. Sauer nor Ms. James responded to requests for comment by the time this article went to press. The nominee to be solicitor general, perhaps collecting material for opening arguments before the high court, cites quotations from Presidents Washington, Lincoln, and Kennedy to urge Ms. James to “stipulate to the vacatur of the Judgment and dismissal of this case with prejudice.” Mr. Sauer ventures that such a decision would be in keeping with the spirit of the Great Emancipator’s Thanksgiving Proclamation of 1863.