Part 3/6:
The appellate court's ruling was not unanimous, with a 3-2 split among the judges. While most agreed on the reversal, their reasoning highlighted that the original penalty did not match the severity of the alleged misconduct. The court concluded that the harm attributed to Trump’s actions was not "cataclysmic" enough to warrant the massive financial penalty—deeming the $550 million figure inflated and unjustified considering the evidence.
This nuanced decision underscored that the case was not simply a matter of guilt or innocence but involved complex considerations about proportionality and the appropriate scope of penalties. The judges indicated that, although there was some misconduct, it did not merit such a draconian financial punishment.