Trump's election helped him with his criminal cases. What about the civil lawsuits he faces?

President-elect Donald Trump's win in November has been a huge boon to him in his criminal cases, with the Justice Department deciding to drop its two federal cases against him and New York and Georgia state courts currently considering what to do with his other two criminal cases. But will his election victory help Trump delay or avoid paying the approximately $600 million in civil case judgments against him?

Trump has already begun to argue that it should.

Trump lawyer John Sauer sent New York Attorney General Letitia James a letter Nov. 26 noting the Justice Department was dropping its criminal cases against Trump and urging her to do the same with her civil fraud lawsuit. A trial judge ordered Trump to pay $454 million in February after concluding Trump inflated the value of his assets for years to get better loan and insurance terms. With interest still accruing, Trump now owes more than $485 million in that case. Trump has denied wrongdoing, and he has appealed the judgment.

"President Trump will soon take office as the 47th President of the United States," Sauer wrote. "Thus, the continued pendency of this lawsuit raises 'grave and doubtful constitutional questions,' ... and greatly disserves the national interest."

James' office, which hasn't yet replied to the letter, declined to comment for this story, but they may argue ? based on Supreme Court precedent ? that presidents are not immune from civil liability for private actions.

Trump could go on to file motions asking courts to dismiss the civil cases, claiming they – with their massive judgments – will unconstitutionally distract from and interfere with his upcoming presidency, just as he is arguing that his two state criminal cases should be be fully dismissed for those reasons. For him to win that argument about civil lawsuits, however, courts would need to announce brand-new protections for a president-elect or sitting president. No one in those positions has ever before been made fully exempt from civil lawsuits.

"The (Supreme Court) would have to extend the law in a way that they never have," Gregory Germain, a Syracuse University law professor, told USA TODAY.

Trump has already appealed the verdicts in three civil cases in New York in which, with accumulating interest, he is now facing about $600 million in liability, and he may think he has a decent chance of getting that liability chopped down or tossed out on other grounds.

That liability includes not just the approximately $485 million in the civil fraud case, but also another $88.3 million in two cases brought by writer E. Jean Carroll, plus ongoing interest, for sexual abuse and defamation. Trump denies Carroll's claims and has appealed those rulings.

Trump's transition team didn't comment directly on whether Trump plans to argue in court that his election should affect his civil cases.

"The American people have re-elected President Trump with an overwhelming mandate to Make America Great Again," Trump spokesperson Steven Cheung said in a statement.

"It is now abundantly clear that Americans want an immediate end to the weaponization of our justice system, so we can, as President Trump said in his historic victory speech, unify our country and work together for the betterment of our nation," Cheung said.

Carroll's lawyer, Roberta Kaplan, said in a statement that Trump's election doesn't alter the reality that juries ruled against him.

“Mr. Trump’s election to the presidency does nothing to change the fact, as determined by two separate juries, that he sexually assaulted and defamed Ms. Carroll, or the applicable legal principles under which he was held liable for that conduct," Kaplan said.

Supreme Court ruled against Bill Clinton in 1997

The strongest argument against any effort by Trump to get his civil cases paused or dismissed may be a 1997 Supreme Court ruling in a sexual harassment lawsuit brought by a former Arkansas state employee, Paula Jones, against against then-President Bill Clinton. The high court ruled unanimously in Clinton v. Jones that a sitting president isn't immune from civil lawsuits in federal court that target actions unrelated to the presidency.

However, Trump could argue that the Clinton case doesn't apply to him because the circumstances in his cases are different from those in the Clinton case.

For instance, Trump's civil fraud case is on appeal in state court, and the Supreme Court in the Clinton decision explicitly said it wasn't addressing what should happen with a state court case. Trump could say that is a crucial difference. In Trump lawyer John Sauer's Nov. 26 letter to New York Attorney General Letitia James, Sauer argued that a provision of the Constitution that places federal laws above state laws means James, as a state prosecutor, can't proceed against a sitting president "in any way."

And while Trump's two cases with E. Jean Carroll are federal court cases, he could argue that they are related to the presidency in some way that makes them different from the Clinton case. One of the cases deals with defamation for statements Trump made in 2019, while he was in his first presidential term.

New Supreme Court and new circumstances?

Trump could also argue that the litigation he has faced shows the Clinton ruling was wrong and should be overturned.

In the 1997 ruling, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the court that only three sitting presidents had ever faced lawsuits for their private behavior and that, if "the past is any indicator, it seems unlikely that a deluge of such litigation will ever engulf the presidency.”

Trump could argue that was faulty reasoning in light of all the litigation he has faced in his lifetime. USA TODAY reported just months before his first presidency that he and his businesses were facing at least 75 pending lawsuits.

Those lawsuits were filed both before and during Trump's 2016 campaign. Trump golf club members, for example, alleged they were denied refundable deposits. Trump University students alleged they were cheated out of tuition for a sham real estate course. One class action lawsuit alleged the Trump campaign violated consumer protection laws by sending unsolicited text messages.

The Carroll and civil fraud cases, which were filed after Trump's first presidency, involve massive awards and issues Trump has shown he cares about: he attended several days of the civil fraud trial and the second E. Jean Carroll trial when he wasn't required to.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court's July 1 presidential immunity ruling in Trump v. United States on the federal charges Trump was facing for allegedly trying to unlawfully overturn the 2020 election showed the conservative majority on today's Supreme Court was open to a broad argument for immunity, at least in a criminal context.

Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority that he feared a president would be "unable to boldly and fearlessly carry out his duties for fear that he may be" prosecuted unless the justices shielded presidents from prosecution for various official acts.

The ruling reversed decisions from two lower courts and surprised many legal experts who had predicted that, even if the Supreme Court granted Trump some immunity, the immunity would be more limited.

"After Trump versus the United States, I have no idea what they will do," Mitchell Epner, a long-time New York litigator and former New Jersey federal prosecutor, told USA TODAY.

Only one justice who joined the Clinton-era opinion, Clarence Thomas, still sits on the Supreme Court.

While reversing course would require Thomas to disavow his previous vote, Thomas has sometimes shown himself to be especially receptive to Trump-favorable arguments. In the July immunity ruling, he wrote a separate opinion, known as a "concurrence," to question whether the appointment of a special counsel in Trump's two federal criminal cases was lawful, even though that issue wasn't before the court at that time.

Trump previews a civil immunity argument?

Trump filed a 69-page motion in his New York criminal case this week that previews the type of argument he could raise to try to get his civil cases paused or fully dismissed.

Trump said his presidential election changes the legal picture because it creates responsibilities for him both as president-elect and later as president that a local prosecution shouldn't be allowed to interfere with under the Constitution.

"Burdening the Presidency with a biased prosecution by a local prosecutor would be not only unconstitutional, but also unbearably undemocratic to the people of this country who chose President Trump as their leader," Trump's lawyers wrote in his motion.

The criminal case should be dismissed, not just delayed, they wrote, because it "creates unconstitutional and unacceptable diversions and distractions from President Trump’s efforts to lead the Nation."

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Will Trump's election victory affect his $600 million civil cases?