A New York appeals panel on Thursday appeared wary of the state’s civil fraud case against former President Trump that ended in a $464 million judgment against him and his business.

During arguments lasting more than an hour, the five-judge panel on the Appellate Division — New York’s midlevel appeals court — questioned whether any constraints apply to the law New York Attorney General Letitia James used against Trump. 

The law gives the state sweeping power to bring actions against businesses that engage in “repeated fraudulent or illegal acts or otherwise demonstrate persistent fraud or illegality in the carrying on, conducting or transaction of business.” 

“How do we draw a line, or at least put up some guardrails, to know when the AG [attorney general] is operating well within her broad — admittedly broad — sphere … and when she is going into an area that wasn’t intended for her jurisdiction?” Justice John Higgitt asked.

A lower judge in February ruled that Trump, the Trump Organization and top executives, including two of Trump’s sons, falsely altered Trump’s net worth on key financial statements to reap tax and insurance benefits.  

He ordered them to pay a combined $464 million, plus interest, of which $454 million is owed by Trump alone, and exacted several other penalties. As of Thursday, interest on the judgment has surpassed $24.7 million, bringing the grand total to more than $489 million. That figure will continue to balloon until Trump pays.  

Trump attorney D. John Sauer, who represented the former president before the Supreme Court in his presidential immunity challenge, argued before the panel that the state’s case was brought too late and that decades-old financial statements should not be the basis for such a “crippling” financial penalty. 

Sauer also reiterated arguments made at trial that banks wanted to work with the Trump Organization, did their own due diligence and found no fraud.   

“They did do their own due diligence,” Sauer said. “The uncontradicted testimony in the summary judgment record is ‘Everything we did was independent; we didn’t rely on the numbers.’” 

New York’s Deputy Solicitor General Judith Vale argued on the state’s behalf that the law gives the attorney general “broad” discretion, but two justices interrupted her opening remarks to ask whether there are any other examples of the state suing “equally sophisticated partners” in such a manner.  

“Because I’ve gone through the case that you’ve cited, and all of them always involved consumer protection aspect — it involved protection of the market,” Justice David Friedman said.  

“You don’t have anything like that here,” he added.  

The arguments held high stakes for Trump. If the panel affirms the lower court’s ruling, it would mark a catastrophic hit to the former president’s wealth and business empire — both of which underpin the persona that rocketed him to the White House.  

In addition to the eye-popping financial penalty, Trump was banned from holding top leadership positions at any New York company for three years and an independent monitor was appointed to oversee his business. 

His sons Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, both executive vice presidents of the Trump Organization, were blocked from serving in leadership roles for two years, on top of the $4.7 million penalties they each owe.  

Those penalties are on pause after Trump posted a $175 million bond earlier this year, blocking James’s office from collecting the massive judgment during the appeal.  

If the panel’s ruling is unfavorable to Trump, interest on the judgment would continue to mount during an appeal to the state’s highest court. If he loses there, he’ll be forced to pay up.  

Despite his estimated $3.7 billion net worth, only approximately $413 million is made up of liquid assets or cash and personal assets that could be used to pay the judgment, according to Forbes.

A ruling on Trump’s appeal is expected in coming months, though it’s unlikely that a decision will be reached before Election Day.