States Urge Court to Reject Trump Fraud Defense

Attorneys general from 17 states, including Connecticut, back New York's civil fraud case against Donald Trump with an amicus brief.

Updated on Nov. 3, 2026 in Financial Crime

States Urge Court to Reject Trump Fraud Defense

Attorneys general for 17 states filed an amicus brief with the New York Court of Appeals urging it to reject Donald Trump's argument in New York's civil fraud case against him and his co-defendants. Trump contends that the banks and insurance companies involved were sophisticated financial institutions that cannot claim they were defrauded.

Why it matters

The case accuses defendants of inflating asset values to obtain better loan and insurance terms, and the brief warns that siding with Trump's argument could weaken state attorneys general's ability to enforce fraud laws. The outcome could shape how states pursue fraud regardless of the victims' level of financial sophistication.

Seventeen state attorneys general, including Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, have filed an amicus brief in New York's civil fraud case against Donald Trump. The matter is pending before the New York Court of Appeals, which has not yet issued a decision.

The players

Donald Trump

Former and current President Donald Trump is a defendant in the civil fraud case and argues that the banks and insurance companies were sophisticated institutions.

William Tong

William Tong is the Connecticut Attorney General who joined the multistate amicus brief supporting New York's enforcement authority.

The details

The brief argues that laws in Connecticut and other states allow attorneys general to act against fraudulent business practices without complaints from those directly involved. The filing rejects the premise that sophisticated lenders and insurers forfeit protection from fraud.

November 3, 2026: Amicus brief filed with the New York Court of Appeals.

Legal Context

The brief defends the authority of state attorneys general under state consumer fraud and business practices statutes, which allow enforcement without complaints from the direct parties involved. Its position is that these statutes should not be narrowed by treating sophisticated financial institutions as ineligible for fraud protection.

The outcome could determine how readers' state attorneys general pursue fraud complaints involving financial products such as loans and insurance. If courts narrow enforcement authority, consumers may have fewer state-level tools to challenge inflated valuations used to secure financial terms.

The takeaway

State enforcement of fraud laws may hinge on whether courts treat financial sophistication as a bar to protection, a question this case could answer for consumers and lenders alike.