Citizens United

12/15/2025 | Press release | Distributed by Public on 12/15/2025 15:08

CU, CUF, TPC File Amicus Brief in Trump v. Carroll

No. 25-573
444444444444444444444444444444444444444444
I
N
T
HE
Supreme Court of the United States
____________________ P
RESIDENT
D
ONALD
J.
T
RUMP
,
Petitioner
,v.E.
J
EAN
C
ARROLL
,
Respondent
.____________________ On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the UnitedStates Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit____________________
Brief
Amicus Curiae
of Citizens United,Citizens United Foundation, andThe Presidential Coalition, LLCin Support of Petitioner
____________________ M
ICHAEL
B
OOS
W
ILLIAM
J.
O
LSON
* Citizens United J
EREMIAH
L.
M
ORGAN
1006 Penn. Ave, S.E.
W
ILLIAM
J.
O
LSON
,
P.C.Washington, DC 20003 370 Maple Ave. W., Ste. 4Vienna, VA 22180R
ICK
B
OYER
(703) 356-5070Integrity Law Firm wjo@mindspring.com P.O. Box 10953*
Counsel of Record
Lynchburg, VA 24506December 15, 2025
Attorneys for Amici
Curiae
444444444444444444444444444444444444444444
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PageT
ABLE OF
A
UTHORITIES
.......................iiiI
NTEREST OF THE
A
MICI
C
URIAE
................1S
TATEMENT OF THE
C
ASE
.....................3S
UMMARY OF
A
RGUMENT
......................5A
RGUMENT
I.T
HE
S
ECOND
C
IRCUIT
E
RRONEOUSLY
A
FFIRMED THE
D
ISTRICT
C
OURT
'
S
V
IOLATIONS OF THE
R
ULES OF
E
VIDENCE
W
HICH
C
AUSED THE
T
RIAL
B
ELOW TO
R
ESEMBLE A
S
TAR
C
HAMBER
P
ROCEEDING
....7A.The Court of Star Chamber RoutinelyRelied on Propensity Evidence........8B.The Rule Against Propensity EvidenceWas Imported to America and HasBeen Universally Recognized.........10II.T
HE
S
ECOND
C
IRCUIT
'
S
A
FFIRMATION OF THE
D
ISTRICT
C
OURT
'
S
E
VIDENTIARY RULINGS
M
UST
B
E
V
IEWED IN THE
C
ONTEXT OF
N
UMEROUS
L
AWFARE
A
CTIONS AGAINST
P
RESIDENT
T
RUMP AND
H
IS
S
UPPORTERS
....13A.Criminal Prosecution of PresidentTrump's Former National SecurityAdvisor Lt. General Michael T. Flynn..13
iiB.Civil Fraud Claims Brought by NewYork Attorney General Letitia James..15C.Criminal Prosecution Brought bySpecial Counsel Jack Smith regardingClassified Documents...............18D.Criminal Prosecution Brought bySpecial Counsel Jack Smith regardingEvents of January 6................ 20E. Criminal Prosecution Brought byFulton County, Georgia DistrictAttorney Fani Willis regarding Effortto Overturn Georgia Election......... 22F.Criminal Prosecution Brought byManhattan District Attorney AlvinBragg regarding Business Records....25C
ONCLUSION
..............................26
iii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
PageCONSTITUTIONArticle I, § 9, cl. 7..........................19Article II, § 2, cl. 2.........................19STATUTES18 U.S.C. § 1001...........................1418 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2).......................21New York Executive Law §63(12)..........15, 16CASES
Boyd v. United States
, 142 U.S. 450 (1892)..10, 11
Buckley v. Valeo
, 424 U.S. 1 (1976)............25
Fischer v. United States
, 603 U.S. 480 (2024)....22
Michelson v. United States
, 335 U.S. 469 (1948)..............................10, 11
Old Chief v. United States
, 519 U.S. 172 (1997)..11
People v. Juarbe
, 43 D.P.R. 448 (P.R. 1932).....12
People v. Stout
, 4 Park. Crim. 71(N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1858).....................12
People v. Trump
, 158 F.4th 458 (Nov. 6, 2025)...26
People v. Trump
, 237 N.Y.S.3d 443 (App.Div. 1st Dept.) (Aug. 21, 2025).........18
People v. Trump
, 2023 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 5705(N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2023).....................16
People v. Trump
, 2024 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 711(N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2024).....................16
Trump v. United States
, 144 S. Ct. 1027 (2024)..21
Trump v. United States
, 603 U.S. 593 (2024)
....
21
United States v. Trump
, 91 F.4th 1173 (D.C. Cir. 2024).........................20
United States v. Trump
, 704 F. Supp. 3d 196 (D.D.C. 2023)...........................20
ivMISCELLANEOUSA. Blake, "Nobody did more damage to RobertMueller than Peter Strzok,"
Washington Post
(Aug. 13, 2018).........................14P. DeGregory and O. Land, "Judge slams FaniWillis' 'tremendous lapse in judgment' in ruling on Trump election interference case,"
New York Post
(Mar. 15, 2024).............24S. Fleetwood, "House Republicans Launch ProbeInto Fulton County's 'Politically Motivated'Trump Indictments,"
The Federalist
(Aug. 24, 2023).........................23J. Gerstein and K. Cheney, "Fani Willis isdisqualified from prosecuting Trump electioncase in Georgia, appeals court rules,"
Politico
(Dec. 19, 2024)..........................24Indictment,
State of Georgia v. Donald J. Trump,et al.
, Superior Court of Fulton County, No. 23SC188947 (Aug. 14, 2023)...........22K.J. Kesselring & N. Mears, eds., Star ChamberMatters: An Early Modern Court and ItsRecords (Univ. London Press: 2021)..........8S. Koch, "Reversing the Odds: CreatingUniformity with Rule 404(b)," 59 S. T
EX
.
L.
R
EV
. 507 (Fall 2018)..........12K. Lewis, "Donald Trump's Georgia Case OrderSparks Timeline Concerns," Newsweek (June 5, 2024)..........................24Michael T. Flynn, Full and Unconditional Pardon,
U.S. DOJ
, (Nov. 25, 2020)................15C. Miller, Evidence: Propensity Character Evid-ence (Rule 404) (CALI eLangdell Press: 2013).9
vC. Miller, "Impeachable Offenses?: Why CivilParties in Quasi-Criminal Cases Should beTreated Like Criminal Defendants Under the Felony Impeachment Rule," 36 P
EPP
.
L.
R
EV
.
Iss. 4, 997 (May 2009)....9, 10J. Morgan, "Why Did Michael Cohen Plead Guiltyto Campaign Finance Crimes That Aren'tCampaign Finance Crimes?"
American Thinker
(Dec. 17, 2018)...................25D. Murdock, "Letitia James, Judge Engoron Wanted to Get Trump, Justice Be Damned,"
Daily Signal
(Feb. 27, 2024)...............17L. O'Connor, "Why was Judge recused fromMueller/Flynn case?"
Washington Times
(Jan. 31, 2018)..........................14Office of the Attorney General, Order No. 5559-2022, "
Appointment
of John L. Smith as Special Counsel
," (Nov. 18, 2022)........18, 19M. Palin, "Nathan Wade makes absurd claim about the moment he and Fani Willis ended their love affair,"
New York Post
(May 6, 2024).................................23A. Pappas, "Comey admits decision to send FBIagents to interview Flynn was not standard,"
Fox News
(Dec. 13, 2018).................13
State of Georgia v. Donald J. Trump, et al.
, Superior Court of Fulton County, No. 23SC188947, State's Motion to NolleProsequi (Nov. 26, 2025)..................24
State of Georgia v. Donald J. Trump, et al.
, Superior Court of Fulton County, No. 23SC188947, Order Granting State's Motion for Dismissal (Nov. 26, 2025)........24
viJ. Wulfsohn, "Donald Trump's 2024 announcement delights fans as critics hit 'lowenergy' speech,"
Fox News
(Nov. 16, 2022)...18
INTEREST OF THE
AMICI CURIAE
1
Amicus
Citizens United is exempt from federalincome taxation under section 501(c)(4) of the InternalRevenue Code ("IRC").
Amicus
Citizens UnitedFoundation is exempt from federal income taxationunder IRC section 501(c)(3). These entities,
inter alia
,participate in the public policy process, includingconducting research, and informing and educating thepublic on the proper construction of state and federalconstitutions, as well as statutes related to the rightsof citizens, and questions related to human and civilrights secured by law. The Presidential Coalition,LLC is a political committee which has a deep interestin the integrity of elections and the need to end theweaponization of law against those participating in theelectoral process.These
amici
have filed eight
amicus curiae
briefsin four different cases fighting against theweaponization of the judicial system with a specialfocus on the corrupt use of lawfare against PresidentTrump and his supporters:
1
It is hereby certified that counsel of record for all partiesreceived timely notice of the intention to file this brief; that nocounsel for a party authored this brief in whole or in part; andthat no person other than these
amici curiae
, their members, ortheir counsel made a monetary contribution to its preparation orsubmission.
2
A.Criminal Prosecution of Trump's formerNational Security Advisor Lt. GeneralMichael T. Flynn.
•Brief
United Statesof America v. Flynn
, U.S. District Court for theDistrict of Columbia, No. 1:17-cr-232 (June 10,2020).
B.Civil Fraud Claims Brought by New YorkAttorney General Letitia James.
New York v. Trump,
Supreme Court of theState of New York, Appellate Division - FirstDepartment, Nos. 2023-04925, 2024-01134,and 2024-01135 (Aug. 2, 2024).
C.Criminal Prosecution Brought by SpecialCounsel Jack Smith regarding ClassifiedDocuments.
,
United States of America v. Trump
,
United States of America v.Trump
, U.S. District Court, Southern District
, in
United States of America v.Trump
, U.S. Court of Appeals for the EleventhCircuit, No. 24-12311 (Nov. 1, 2024).
D.Criminal Prosecution Brought by SpecialCounsel Jack Smith regarding Events of January 6:
,
Trump v. United States
,
Trumpv. United States
, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 23-939 (Mar. 19, 2024); and •Brief
JosephW. Fischer v. United States
, U.S. SupremeCourt, No. 23-5572 (Feb. 5, 2024).
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
In 2019, Respondent E. Jean Carroll made publicclaims that President Trump had assaulted her in a
4department store dressing room over 20 years earlier. Despite having no corroborating evidence of any type,and President Trump consistently denying theallegations, after consulting with anti-Trump politicaloperatives, and with anti-Trump advice and financialsupport,
2
Respondent filed suit against Donald Trump,then serving as the nation's 45
th
President, for battery,and for defamation in stating his opinion that the suitagainst him was a politically motivated hoax.
See
Petition for Certiorari ("Pet. Cert.") at 2, 9.From the record, it appears that the district courtconsistently ruled against President Trump on contested evidentiary issues, compromising thefairness of the trial and violating his due processrights. The "propensity evidence" presented at trialconsisted of claims by two women who alleged thatPresident Trump acted improperly toward them manyyears before, but claims which were not made untilOctober 2016, only days before the November 2016Presidential Election. One woman claimed that shewas accosted by President Trump in 2005 (18 yearsbefore the trial), while the other woman claimed theevent occurred in 1979 (44 years before the trial). Pet.Cert. at 7-8, 16. These evidentiary rulings of thedistrict court allowed prejudicial and inflammatorypropensity evidence to be presented to the jury, pavingthe way for a May 2023 verdict from a New York jury
2
These opponents of President Trump included Biden-funderReid Hoffman who funded the litigation through his nonprofit,American Future Republic, and founder of the anti-TrumpLincoln Project super PAC, George Conway who provided adviceand encouragement. Pet. Cert. at 6, 53A.
5of $5 million.
3
(This is the issue on which these
amici
focus.)The Second Circuit panel upheld the districtcourt's admission of the propensity evidence, andPresident Trump's petition for rehearing
en banc
wasalso denied on a split vote. Judge Menashi, joined byJudge Park, issued a stinging dissent from that denial,stating: The panel opinion embraced a series of anomalous holdings to affirm the judgment of the district court.... [I]t upheld the admissionof propensity evidence on the dubious theorythat evidence of prior acts of sexual assaultcould "prove the
actus reus
," meaning whetherthe defendant acted in accordance with thepropensity on a later occasion.... Theseholdings conflict with controlling precedentsand produced a judgment that cannot bejustified under the rules of evidence that applyas a matter of course in all other cases. [Petition Appendix ("Pet. App.") at 201A-202A.]
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
The evidentiary rulings of the district court judgeblatantly violated the due process rights of defendant,
3
The jury pool for the Southern District of New York includessome lightly populated, marginally Republican counties, but isprimarily drawn from densely populated, heavily anti-TrumpManhattan and the Bronx.
6by allowing the jury to be presented propensityevidence which is banned by Federal Rule of EvidenceRules 403 and 404, and fails to qualify under any of the exceptions to Rule 404. Especially since thedefendant was the President of the United States,overwhelmingly opposed politically by the great bulkof those in one of the most liberal jury pools in thenation, it is inconceivable that the trial judge did notunderstand that the evidence would be far moreprejudicial than probative. In admitting propensity evidence, the district courtadopted a practice that characterized proceedingsbefore the Court of Star Chamber - a court designedto protect the interests of the King and his nobles. One of the procedural abuses used to protect the King'sinterests was also used by the political supporters of President Biden to damage the chances of PresidentTrump winning a second term. The
Carroll v. Trump
case must be seen as onecomponent of a larger, thoroughly corrupt, lawfarestrategy waged against President Trump and hissupporters designed to punish them for the audacity of challenging the nation's political establishment, and toderail President Trump's campaign seeking return tooffice. The epicenter of these efforts has been in NewYork, where, in addition to the
Carroll
case, anunprecedented civil case was brought by DemocratNew York Attorney General Letitia James, and abaseless prosecution was brought by DemocratManhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. Threeother lawfare cases were also brought to stop Trump,two by President Biden Attorney General Merrick
7Garland's appointee, Jack Smith, and litigated asmeetings were held with the Biden White HouseCounsel's office by Fulton County, Georgia, ProsecutorFani Willis and her paramour, Nathan Wade.
ARGUMENTI.THE SECOND CIRCUIT ERRONEOUSLYAFFIRMED THE DISTRICT COURT'SVIOLATIONS OF THE RULES OF EVIDENCEWHICH CAUSED THE TRIAL BELOW TORESEMBLE A STAR CHAMBERPROCEEDING.
The district court admitted highly prejudicial"propensity" testimony in the civil case againstPresident Trump, which evidence should have beenexcluded under Federal Rule of Evidence Rule 404. Rule 404(a)(1) provides, "Evidence of a person'scharacter or character trait is not admissible to provethat on a particular occasion the person acted inaccordance with the character or trait." Subsection(b)(1) provides, "Evidence of any other crime, wrong, oract is not admissible to prove a person's character inorder to show that on a particular occasion the personacted in accordance with the character." The Petitionexplains clearly that the district court elevated a floorstatement by one congressional sponsor over the textof the rule, avoiding making the type of decisionsroutinely required of trial judges, as to whether thisevidence was more prejudicial than probative. Indeed,the jury verdict proved it was.
See
Pet. App. at 18A.
8Petitioner has provided ample, indeed abundant,detail of the specific errors made by the district court. This argument is enhanced by an understanding of thehistorical context of the rule barring propensityevidence. It has been often noted by this Court andother courts and commentators that the rule to excludepropensity evidence is well-grounded in Anglo-American law, to ensure that a jury hears onlyevidence connected with a particular crime or civilallegation, and is not prejudiced or inflamed againstthe defendant on the basis of other actions. What isless well known is the specific English practice which this rule was designed to end.
A.The Court of Star Chamber RoutinelyRelied on Propensity Evidence.
Although there are occasions where a modernproceeding is hyperbolically described as resembling aStar Chamber proceeding, this is a case where thatdescription is accurate. The Court of Star Chamberoperated as an English prerogative court, meaningthat it derived its authority from the royal prerogative- the King's inherent powers, privileges, andimmunities. Indeed, it was designed to protect theinterests of the King and his powerful nobles. Itaddressed both civil and criminal matters, without ajury, and became notorious for political prosecutionsand arbitrary procedures of the sort that would nothave been permitted by the common-law courts.
4
The
4
See generally,
K.J. Kesselring & N. Mears, eds., Star ChamberMatters: An Early Modern Court and Its Records(Univ. LondonPress: 2021).
9type of evidence regularly relied on by Star Chamberwas propensity evidence. A 2009 law review article by University of SouthCarolina School of Law Professor Colin Millerexplained Star Chamber's use of evidence bannedtoday by Rule 404: One of the most conspicuous consumers of propensity character evidence, and ultimatelythe harbinger of its death, was The Court of Star Chamber. Established in 1487, the StarChamber was an expeditious way for theTudors and Stuarts to exorcise political andreligious dissenters of the monarchy whilemasquerading as a court conducting treasontrials. The Star Chamber was the Crown's"organ of terror, renown[ed] among thecitizenry for its arbitrary and cruel decisions," and one of its most capricious practices wasthe deluge of character evidence it admitted,resulting in defendants being punished fortheir sordid character rather than theirculpable conduct.
5
After the Long Parliament abolished StarChamber in 1641, prosecutors were proscribed from
5
EPP
.
L.R
EV
.
Iss. 4, 997, 1003 (May 2009) (citations omitted).
See also
, C.Miller, Evidence: Propensity Character Evidence (Rule 404) (CALI eLangdell Press: 2013).
10proving at trial any overt acts not charged in theindictment, thus precluding character evidence, aprotection later extended to all criminal trials.
Id
. Soon "courts and commentators recogniz[ed] that suchevidence violated the right to due process of lawguaranteed by the Magna Carta."
Id
. at 1004. JusticeRobert Jackson explained that the ban on propensityevidence was well-established in common law courts.
See Michelson v. United States
, 335 U.S. 469 (1948).
B.The Rule Against Propensity EvidenceWas Imported to America and Has BeenUniversally Recognized.
Eight decades prior to July 1, 1975, when theFederal Rules of Evidence went into effect, this Courtruled that a trial court erred in admitting evidencethat defendants who were on trial for murder hadpreviously committed robberies. The Court explainedthe importance of the rule to achieving a fair trial:Proof of them only tended to
prejudice
thedefendants with the jurors, to
draw theirminds away from the real issue
, and toproduce the impression that they werewretches whose lives were of no value to thecommunity, and who were not entitled to thefull benefit of the rules prescribed by law forthe trial of human beings charged with crimeinvolving the punishment of death.... Howeverdepraved in character, and however full of crime their past lives may have been, the
defendants were entitled to be tried
uponcompetent evidence, and
only for the offence
11
charged
. [
Boyd v. United States
, 142 U.S.450, 458 (1892) (emphasis added).] A half-century later, Justice Robert Jackson,writing for the Court, explained the policy whichunderlies the rule, providing an explanation that hasfrequently been quoted ever since:The state may not show defendant's priortrouble with the law, specific criminal acts, orill name among his neighbors, even thoughsuch facts might logically be persuasive thathe is by propensity a probable perpetrator of the crime. The inquiry is not rejected becausecharacter is irrelevant; on the contrary, it issaid to weigh too much with the jury and to sooverpersuade them as to
prejudge
one with abad general record and deny him a
fairopportunity to defend
against a particularcharge. The overriding policy of excludingsuch evidence, despite its admitted probativevalue, is the practical experience that itsdisallowance tends to prevent confusion of issues, unfair surprise and
undue prejudice
. [
Michelson
at 475-76 (emphasis added).]More recently, this Court again stated this policy,that although "'propensity evidence" is relevant, the
risk
that a jury will convict for crimes other thanthose charged - or that, uncertain of guilt, it willconvict anyway because a bad person deservespunishment - creates
a prejudicial effect thatoutweighs ordinary relevance
."
Old Chief v.United States
, 519 U.S. 172, 181 (1997) (quoting
12
United States v. Moccia
, 681 F.2d 61, 63 (1st Cir. 1982)(emphasis added)).
6
This has been the rule in NewYork State as well.
See
People v. Stout
, 4 Park. Crim.71, 98 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1858).
See also People v. Juarbe
,43 D.P.R. 448 (P.R. 1932), relying on
People v. Stout
.When Rule 404 was proposed, it was accompaniedby Advisory Committee Notes, which are instructivehere: Character evidence ...
subtly permits
thetrier of fact to reward the good man to
punishthe bad man
because of their respectivecharacters
despite what the evidence inthe case shows actually happened
. [Rule404Notes (emphasis added).]The same problem exists in civil and criminalcases. Politicized prosecutors and politically savvyplaintiff attorneys will have a sense of how propensityevidence can be used to manipulate a jury to win acase unfairly. Judges are on the bench to preventlawyers from manipulating juries based on emotionand prejudice, but here the district court gaveRespondent's counsel free rein to inflame the jurybeyond any hope of rationally considering only theevidence at hand, and accordingly delivered apoliticized judgment and award.
6
See, generally
EX
.
L.
R
EV
. 507, 512 (Fall2018).
13
II.THE SECOND CIRCUIT'S AFFIRMATION OFTHE DISTRICT COURT'S EVIDENTIARYRULINGS MUST BE VIEWED IN THECONTEXT OF NUMEROUS LAWFAREACTIONS AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMPAND HIS SUPPORTERS
.Guided and funded by some of President Trump'smost virulent political opponents, the suit by Ms.Carroll must be viewed in the context of a raft of otherunfounded civil and criminal cases brought to abusethe law to achieve a political objective.
A.Criminal Prosecution of PresidentTrump's Former National SecurityAdvisor Lt. General Michael T. Flynn.
General Flynn was appointed National SecurityAdvisor by President Trump in his firstAdministration. Before Inauguration Day, GeneralFlynn had a call with the Russian Ambassador SergeyKislyak to urge him not to over-react to an Obamaprovocation, as a new Administration was soon to takeoffice. His call was intercepted and leaked byunidentified elements of the Biden intelligencecommunity. FBI Director James Comey bragged heviolated protocol and sent agents to the White Houseto meet with General Flynn under false pretenseswithout advising him he was being investigated.
7
Although the agents did not believe Flynn lied,
7
See
Fox News
(Dec. 13, 2018).
14charges were brought against General Flynn forviolation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001. Judge Rudolph Contreras was initially assigned tothe Flynn case, yet on December 7, 2017, JudgeContreras "was recused" from the case, and it wasreassigned to Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. No reasonwas given by the Court for the reassignment.
8
Later,messages between senior FBI counterintelligenceofficial Peter Strzok
9
and FBI lawyer Lisa Page, bothfamous for their role in Crossfire Hurricane, wererevealed, and from those texts it was learned thatJudge Contreras had a personal relationship withStrzok - one of the two FBI agents who interviewedFlynn.After first pleading guilty largely to preventthreatened charges from being brought against hisson, General Flynn filed a motion for leave towithdraw his guilty plea "because of the government'sbad faith, vindictiveness, and breach of the pleaagreement." After an investigation, on May 7, 2020,the Department of Justice ("DOJ") moved to dismissthe charges with prejudice. Yet, Judge Sullivanadamantly refused to dismiss the charges.
8
See
Washington Times
(Jan. 31, 2018).
9
Peter Strzok was on the staff of Special Counsel Robert Mueller,but later fired from the FBI.
See, e.g.,
Washington Post
(Aug. 13, 2018).
15On Thursday, May 21, 2020, a three-judge panelfrom the D.C. Circuit issued an order requiring JudgeSullivan to provide information regarding his decisionnot to immediately grant the DOJ request to dismissthe case against General Flynn. On June 24, 2020, theappeals court panel ruled 2-1 in favor of Flynn on thefirst two requests, and the panel unanimously rejectedthe third request. Refusing to give up, Judge Sullivanon July 9 petitioned the Court of Appeals for an
enbanc
rehearing, a request opposed by Flynn and theDOJ, and on July 30, the court granted Sullivan'spetition and vacated the panel's ruling. After oralargument on August 11, 2020, the appeal wasdismissed on August 31, 2020. Even though Flynn hadcommitted no crime, to end the matter, PresidentTrump pardoned Flynn on November 25, 2020,
10
andthe district court was forced to dismiss the case asmoot on December 8, 2020.
B.Civil Fraud Claims Brought by New YorkAttorney General Letitia James.
In September 2022, Democrat New York AttorneyGeneral Letitia James filed an unprecedented, seven-count civil suit against former President Trump,several family members, business associates, andcompanies in which Mr. Trump had a controllinginterest, for violating New York Executive Law §63(12)by submitting false financial statements to banks andinsurance companies to obtain better rates on loansand insurance coverage.
10
U.S. DOJ
,(Nov. 25, 2020).
16Count One was a "standalone" count for violating§63(12), which the trial court found required only afinding of "persistent and repeated fraud."
See Peoplev. Trump
, 2023 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 5705, at 43-44 (N.Y.Sup. Ct. 2023) ("
New York I
"). In September 2023,Justice Arthur Engoron granted summary judgment toJames on Count I, sending the case to trial todetermine the penalty, together with the remaining sixclaims to determine both liability and the penalty.
Id
.at *43-45, 72-77. In February 2024, the trial courtruled that, where "persistent fraud or illegality" exists,New York courts can impose an award of fines payableto the attorney general under "equitable" principles,
even though such fines are not expresslyauthorized by statute
.
See People v. Trump
, 2024N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 711, at 8 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2024) ("
NewYork II
"). On February 16, 2024, the trial court found Mr.Trump liable on five of the six remaining counts
(NewYork II
at 177-79, 183-86, 205) and two Trumporganization officials liable on the final count of committing insurance fraud (
id.
at 185, 205). TheJudgment consisted of three primary amounts.
Id
. at205-07. First was
$168,040,168
for the amount theTrump organizations saved in interest payments onloans for four properties allegedly obtained atartificially-low interest rates through use of falsefinancial information.
Id
. at 189. Second was
$126,828,600
as profit for the sale of the "Old PostOffice" property on which the Trump organizationsallegedly obtained loans via false financial statements.
Id
. at 191. Third was
$60 million
in profits from thesale of a license agreement for the Ferry Point
17property, an agreement allegedly obtained by the useof false financial statements.
Id
. In addition, thecourt-imposed prejudgment interest, with the totalaward and interest reportedly in the range of
$435million
. The court also barred Trump from serving asan officer or director of a corporation in New York forthree years and barred his associated businesses fromapplying for loans in New York for three years.
Id
. at207.According to the theory pressed by New York state,a large and sophisticated New York bank representedby experienced counsel was incompetent to negotiatean agreement to protect itself. There was nocomplaint, and no one lost any money. The loans wererepaid timely and in full. The evidence neverdemonstrated reasonable reliance on Trump'srepresentations which were accompanied by adisclaimer. The Attorney General of New York abused herpowers to invent a problem that did not exist, to obtaina mammoth penalty, the sole beneficiary of whichwould be the State of New York. This case fulfilledJames' campaign promise to "
get Trump
."
11
Following these
amici's
brief,
12
the Appellate Division- in a sharply divided opinion - upheld the decision,
11
See
D. Murdock, "Letitia James, Judge Engoron Wanted to GetTrump, Justice Be Damned,"
Daily Signal
(Feb. 27, 2024)(emphasis added).
12
Brief for
Amici Curiae
Citizens United,
et al.
,
New York v.Trump
.
18but could not bring itself to affirm the size of thejudgment awarded to the State.
See
People v. Trump
,237 N.Y.S.3d 443 (App.Div. 1st Dept.) (Aug. 21, 2025).
C.Criminal Prosecution Brought by SpecialCounsel Jack Smith regarding ClassifiedDocuments.
On August 8, 2022, the FBI conducted anunannounced raid at the residence of President Trumpand his family in West Palm Beach, Florida, whilePresident Trump was in New York. The FBI searchedfor classified documents, spending 10 hours combingthrough his property, including Melania Trump'sunderwear drawers, seizing 33 boxes of materials.President Trump announced his candidacy for the2024 election on November 15, 2022.
13
Three dayslater, on November 18, President Biden's AttorneyGeneral Merrick B. Garland announced that he hadappointed John L. "Jack" Smith as Special Counsel toinvestigate candidate for President Trump.
14
TheAttorney General's Order authorized the SpecialCounsel "to conduct the ongoing investigation intowhether any person or entity violated the law inconnection with efforts to interfere with the lawfultransfer of power following the 2020 presidential
13
Fox News
(Nov. 16, 2022).
14
Office of the Attorney General, Order No. 5559-2022,"
," ¶ (c) (Nov. 18,2022).
19election or the certification of the Electoral Collegevote held on or about January 6, 2021."
Id.,
¶ (b). On February 22, 2024, former President Trumpmoved to dismiss the superseding indictment, on thegrounds that the appointment of the Special Counselviolated the Appointments Clause (Art. II, § 2, cl. 2)and that the funding for the Special Counsel from thepermanent indefinite appropriation for theDepartment of Justice violated the AppropriationsClause (Art. I, § 9, cl. 7).
United States v. Trump,
No.9:23-CR-80101-AMC, Doc. No. 326. On July 15, 2024,the District Court granted Trump's motion to dismiss.
Id.,
Doc. No. 672. Special Counsel Smith appealed thedistrict court's dismissal order to the Eleventh Circuit. The delegation of authority claimed by the SpecialCounsel presupposes a grant of legislative power to theAttorney General to establish an office of the UnitedStates in violation of the Framers' check on the powerof the Executive Branch to create offices by requiringthey "be established by Law." The statutory authorityclaimed by Attorney General Garland to create anoffice that exercised "the full power and independentauthority" of a United States Attorney with noeffective supervision of or control over the SpecialCounsel violated the non-delegation doctrine.Some of these
amici
filed two
amicus
briefs in thedistrict court and one in the Eleventh Circuit, arguingin support of the position that Jack Smith was notproperly appointed because he was not a Senate-confirmed U.S. Attorney, as other Special Counsels
20have been. After President Trump was re-elected inNovember 2024, the case against him was dismissed.
D.Criminal Prosecution Brought by SpecialCounsel Jack Smith regarding Events of January 6.
On August 1, 2023, the Biden Administration'sSpecial Counsel Smith obtained his second federalindictment of President and candidate Trump, thistime in the District of Columbia for crimes allegedlycommitted between the November 3, 2020 Presidentialelection and the January 20, 2021 Presidentialinauguration. On December 1, 2023, district judgeTanya S. Chutkan ruled that former Presidents enjoyno immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts,and a federal prosecutor may bring criminal chargesagainst a former President based on conduct for whichhe was acquitted during an impeachment proceeding.
United States v. Trump
, 704 F. Supp. 3d 196 (D.D.C.2023). The district court stayed proceedings duringthe pendency of President Trump's appeal of JudgeChutkan's ruling. However, Special Counsel JackSmith seemed eager to move the case along to havetime to obtain a conviction of President Trump beforethe November 2024 election, as he filed a petition forcertiorari before judgment and a motion to expedite inthis Court, while the appeal was pending in the D.C.Circuit, which this Court denied. On February 6, 2024, the D.C. Circuit affirmed thedistrict court.
United States v. Trump
, 91 F.4th 1173(D.C. Cir. 2024). On February 12, 2024, Trump filedan application to stay the D.C. Circuit's mandate
21pending disposition of his petition for certiorari, whichthis Court treated as a petition and granted.
15
These
amici
filed
amicus
briefs in support of PresidentTrump on February 20, 2024 and March 19, 2024, butthis Court declined to consider the legality of theAttorney General's appointment of Jack Smith.
16
On July 1, 2024, this Court rejected the districtcourt's and the circuit court's conclusions that formerPresidents have no federal criminal immunity foractions taken during their presidency. This Court heldthat for presidential actions within the core of thePresident's constitutional powers, former Presidentshave absolute immunity.
See Trump v. United States
,603 U.S. 593 (2024). For other official actions, there isat least presumptive immunity which may be rebuttedby the prosecution.
Id
. Additionally, half of the charges that Smithbrought against Trump in D.C. were based not on theinsurrection statute so often claimed to have occurred,but on a perverse reading of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2)enacted as part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. That section was weaponized by federal prosecutorsagainst hundreds of Trump supporters who were at theCapitol Building on January 6, 2021. These
amici
filed a brief in support of one January 6 defendant whohad been charged with § 1512(c)(2) simply for enteringthe Capitol for a few minutes that day, thus facing a
15
Trump v. United States
, 144 S. Ct. 1027 (2024).
16
See
Briefs of Former Attorneys General Edwin Meese III,
et al.
as
Amici Curiae
,
supra
.
22potential 20 year sentence if convicted.
17
Just a fewdays before its decision in
Trump v. United States
, thisCourt rejected the interpretation of that section whichD.C. prosecutors were using as part of their lawfareagainst Trump supporters, and which Special CounselSmith attempted to use against President Trump.
SeeFischer v. United States
, 603 U.S. 480 (2024).
E. Criminal Prosecution Brought by FultonCounty, Georgia District Attorney FaniWillis regarding Effort to OverturnGeorgia Election.
In
State of Georgia v. Donald J. Trump, et al.
,Superior Court of Fulton County, No. 23SC188947,Fulton County, Georgia Democrat District AttorneyFani Willis prosecuted efforts by then-PresidentDonald Trump and his supporters to challenge theintegrity of Georgia's 2020 presidential electionresults, where Joe Biden was reported to have won byonly 11,779 votes. Willis delayed bringing these charges for over1,000 days after the 2020 election. Then, on August14, 2023, when it was becoming clear that PresidentTrump was the favorite to be nominated to run again,
17
Fischer v. United States
, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 23-5572 (Feb. 5, 2024)
23she brought a 98-page, 41-count indictmentagainstTrump and 18 co-defendants. The charges werecentered on "criminal enterprise" racketeering (RICO)under a Georgia statute typically used againstorganized crime. Just days before filing the indictment, Willislaunched a fundraising site highlighting the Trumpprobe, raising over $500,000. In early 2024, aromantic relationship between Willis and specialprosecutor Nathan Wade, whom she hired to bring thecase, was exposed. Trump and co-defendants moved todisqualify Willis, arguing it created a conflict of interest and appearance of impropriety. "It was alsoalleged that Willis prolonged the case against Trumpand his co-defendants so Wade could rake in more payfrom the county, which he then used to take her onlavish trips."
18
Republicans on the U.S. HouseJudiciary Committee sent a letter to Willis demandinganswers to several improprieties in the indictmentprocess, including "questions about the involvement of Department of Justice Special Counsel Jack Smith andwhether Willis' office 'coordinated' with Smith 'duringthe course of [her] investigation.'"
19
Wade also billedfor meetings with White House Counsel and aninterview at the White House.
18
New YorkPost
(May 6, 2024).
19
TheFederalist
(Aug. 24, 2023).
24Judge Scott McAfee ruled March 15, 2024 thatWillis could stay on the case if Wade resigned (whichhe did), but the judge criticized the prosecution'screating a "significant appearance of impropriety."
20
In June 2024, the Georgia Court of Appeals paused theproceedings in the case pending an appeal of Willis'qualification.
21
In December 2024, the Georgia Courtof Appeals disqualified Willis entirely due to theconflict, ordering a new prosecutor, declaring that"[t]his is the rare case in which disqualification ismandated and no other remedy will suffice to restorepublic confidence in the integrity of theseproceedings."
22
On November 26, 2025, a substituteprosecutor moved to dismiss all remaining chargesagainst Trump and the those co-defendants still facingtrial, stating, "it is not illegal to question or challengeelection results."
23
Judge McAfee granted the motion.
24
20
New York Post
(Mar. 15, 2024).
21
K. Lewis, "Donald Trump's Georgia Case Order SparksTimeline Concerns,"
Newsweek
(June 5, 2024).
22
Politico
(Dec. 19, 2024).
23
24
25
F.Criminal Prosecution Brought byManhattan District Attorney Alvin Braggregarding Business Records.
The first lawfare indictment against PresidentTrump was Democrat Manhattan District AttorneyAlvin Bragg's prosecution for "falsifying businessrecords," brought on March 30, 2023. Bragg developed34 counts centered around the manner certainreimbursement payments to attorney Michael Cohenwere characterized in the Trump Organization's non-public records. Bragg's theory of the case is that the businessrecords concealed the true nature of the entries inorder to conceal violations of federal election laws. However, there was no federal election law violation,so the very basis for Bragg's case was concoctedlawfare in order to prevent Trump from beingreelected in 2024.
25
Just last month, the Second Circuit remanded thecase to the federal district court to determine whetherthe case should be removed from state court due to the
25
In order to taint President Trump, the office of the U.S.Attorney for the Southern District of New York coerced a guiltyplea from Michael Cohen to a campaign finance crime that did notexist. But the act of Cohen was payment for a publisher
not topublish
an article, an act which does not meet this Court'slimiting definition of "express advocacy" established in
Buckley v.Valeo
, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), and its progeny.
See
American Thinker
(Dec.17, 2018).
26federal issues at stake, including presidentialimmunity.
See People v. Trump
, 158 F.4th 458 (Nov.6, 2025).
CONCLUSION
The electorate issued its own verdict on thelawfare waged in and by certain lower courts againstPresident Trump when it elected him the Forty-Seventh President of the United States.For the foregoing reasons, the petition forcertiorari should be granted. Respectfully submitted,M
ICHAEL
B
OOS
W
ILLIAM
J.
O
LSON
*C
ITIZENS
U
NITED
J
EREMIAH
L.
M
ORGAN
1006 Penn. Ave, SE
W
ILLIAM
J.
O
LSON
,
P.C.Washington, DC 20003 370 Maple Ave. W., Ste. 4Vienna, VA 22180R
ICK
B
OYER
(703) 356-5070I
NTEGRITY
L
AW
F
IRM
[email protected]P.O. Box 10953*
Counsel of Record
Lynchburg, VA 24506
Attorneys for Amici
Curiae
December 15, 2025
Citizens United published this content on December 15, 2025, and is solely responsible for the information contained herein. Distributed via Public Technologies (PUBT), unedited and unaltered, on December 15, 2025 at 21:08 UTC. If you believe the information included in the content is inaccurate or outdated and requires editing or removal, please contact us at [email protected]