The Trump University case isn’t over. An attorney on the case explains what’s next.

Most people probably think the Trump University lawsuit — in which students at the supposed “school” accused our now-president of fraud — is over. Donald Trump settled for $25 million in November, shortly after he was elected.

But it’s not over. One plaintiff, Sherri Simpson, wants to take Trump to trial, as she explained in a column for Vox recently.

“I understand why some folks simply want to settle, take a little money, and forget this ever happened,” Simpson wrote. “Scams like Trump U victimize the vulnerable, and they need to be stopped. ... This shouldn’t be swept under the rug with a settlement that doesn’t even require him to pay back what he took or admit guilt.”

Simpson has hired some prestigious Washington lawyers, including Deepak Gupta of Gupta Wessler, who was a litigator in the Obama administration and has argued cases before the Supreme Court, to pursue her case.

I asked Gupta some questions about the case recently over email. Why isn’t this over? What happens now? Could Trump really go to trial?

So this is one side of the story, the allegations against Trump. Our exchange is below, edited for clarity and length.

Dylan Scott

Remind people quickly what the Trump University case was about in the first place.

Deepak Gupta

Trump University promised people an “Ivy League quality” education in real estate. Trump told prospective students that his “hand-picked” professors and personal “mentors” would teach them his secret techniques. The strategy was to bring people in for a free seminar and then sell them on mentorship programs for $35,000.

But as most people now know, it was all an elaborate scam. The instructors and mentors had never even met Trump. They had no “secrets” to share — in fact, many had no real estate experience to share at all. Many mentors, like Sherri’s, just disappeared. Sad!

The case was filed as a class action alleging fraud. It was before Judge Gonzalo Curiel, a federal judge in San Diego.

Dylan Scott

I think the last thing most people remember is a settlement that President Trump made in the case. What were the details of that settlement?

Deepak Gupta

Just days after the election, Trump agreed to pay $25 million to settle the class action. Most people thought the story ended there.

But there was an important twist. Even though class members had previously been promised the right to opt out of any settlement, the deal was drafted to prevent class members from exercising that right.

Trump admitted no wrongdoing — and immediately tweeted that he would’ve won at trial.

Trump also tweeted that the deal represented a “small fraction of the potential award” at trial. He was right. The $25 million pales compared to the $170 million he’d incur if he lost a RICO trial for racketeering and fraud. And the court had already greenlighted the RICO claims for trial.

If the settlement stands, this means that our client Sherri Simpson and others like her who were defrauded by Trump could only get about one-seventh the value of their claims under this settlement. Plus, no public trial, no admission of wrongdoing, and no court order to prevent the same thing from happening again.

Dylan Scott

So why wasn't that the end of the story?

Deepak Gupta

Because everyone (Trump, the lawyers, and the court) was in a big hurry to get the case settled after the election, they cut some corners. The main problem is that, as I mentioned earlier, they reneged on their promise to opt out or, in the words of the official notice, “to be excluded from any settlement.”

Sherri Simpson wants to take Trump to trial. She objected to the settlement in the trial court and is now continuing to fight for her right to opt out of settlement and go to trial.

Dylan Scott

What happened recently? What’s next?

Deepak Gupta

I just joined Sherri’s legal team as her appellate lawyer. We filed our brief appealing the Trump University settlement to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Several top law professors who are experts in class actions and consumer protection have also filed friend-of-the-court briefs supporting the appeal.

Dylan Scott

What are the key legal questions that will determine the final ruling?

Deepak Gupta

In a nutshell: The Ninth Circuit will have to decide if it’s okay, under the due process clause of the US Constitution and the federal class-action rules, to do what the settlement did here: promise people you’re going to let them opt out of any settlement and then later renege on that promise. That’s the main issue. We also argue that class members should be able to see the terms of any settlement before they have to give up their claims forever.

Dylan Scott

You told us earlier that Trump could end up going for trial for fraud. Is that right? What would have to happen for it to get to that point?

Deepak Gupta

Yes, that’s right. Trump really could end up going to trial. We’re confident that the Ninth Circuit will rule that any deal like this must allow people like Sherri to opt out if they want.

So then what? Then Trump will have some decisions to make. Does he jettison the whole settlement and go into a big class-action trial facing $170 million in damages? Or does he stick with the deal for those members who want it, and let others join Sherri’s team or go their own way? That’s all up to him, but either way, a trial is a real possibility.

Dylan Scott

But seriously: I think most people would be skeptical that the president of the United States could end up going to trial. How likely is it really?

Deepak Gupta

Well, most people may think that, but then most people would be wrong. This very issue was decided by the US Supreme Court in Clinton v. Jones. In a sexual harassment case involving President Clinton’s pre-presidential conduct, the Supreme Court held that there is no immunity from suit, and no basis to put off the trial just because the defendant is the president. And in fact, before this case settled, the judge and the lawyers (including Trump’s) all agreed the trial would go forward.

But I do agree people have failed to see this coming — most people wrote this case off when it settled right after the election — and there’s still a fair bit of uncertainty ahead.

Ultimately, this case will test our legal system’s commitment to a basic principle — that you have a right to a day in court and that right can’t be taken away without your consent. Sherri wants her day in court, so she can hold Trump accountable for ripping her off.

Will you support Vox’s explanatory journalism?

Most news outlets make their money through advertising or subscriptions. But when it comes to what we’re trying to do at Vox, there are a couple of big issues with relying on ads and subscriptions to keep the lights on:

First, advertising dollars go up and down with the economy. We often only know a few months out what our advertising revenue will be, which makes it hard to plan ahead.

Second, we’re not in the subscriptions business. Vox is here to help everyone understand the complex issues shaping the world — not just the people who can afford to pay for a subscription. We believe that’s an important part of building a more equal society. And we can’t do that if we have a paywall.

So even though advertising is still our biggest source of revenue, we also seek grants and reader support. (And no matter how our work is funded, we have strict guidelines on editorial independence.)

If you also believe that everyone deserves access to trusted high-quality information, will you make a gift to Vox today? Any amount helps.

One-Time Monthly Annual

$5/month

$10/month

$25/month

$50/month

Other

$

Yes, I'll give $5/month

Yes, I'll give $5/month

We accept credit card, Apple Pay, and Google Pay. You can also contribute via