I thought civil cases were designed for person vs person, contract disputes, divorce, etc. but in this case the it seems like the state is accusing someone of breaking the law but then not giving them the protections of A criminal trial (unanimous jury to be found guilty/liable). I am confused on how this works.
In: 0
Not all laws are criminal laws. The state can both sue and be sued in civil court, if there is a matter of monetary damages between the state and a citizen. This also works at the federal level, wherein the federal government can be sued by state governments and vice-versa for certain matters.
ETA:
Also regarding this:
> but in this case the it seems like the state is accusing someone of breaking the law but then not giving them the protections of A criminal trial (unanimous jury to be found guilty/liable).
One of the things about a civil trial is that it can only result in judgements to pay monetary penalties or repay damages, not prison time or capital punishment. A big reason we have such a high standard in criminal trials is that we don’t want the state, which we give a very large amount of power over our lives, to imprison or kill people unless we’re absolutely sure they’re guilty of a crime. (At least that’s the theory, at the moment plea bargaining is putting a lot of innocent people in prison and giving them criminal records). While in theory the state can sue and find in favor of you owing a bunch of money, the old adage is “you can’t squeeze blood from a stone” – if you go bankrupt it will fuck your credit up, but if you don’t have the money to pay, they can’t really do much about that, as we don’t have debtors prisons. (Again, at least in theory, there are some ways that you can end up in jail for not paying a debt for long enough but technically it’s for violating a court order or something similar.)
The simple answer is that New York law says the state can sue a person.
At the risk of breaking the rule about current events, New York Executive Law, Section 63.12, specifically authorises the attorney general to bring a civil case against anyone engaged in “repeated fraudulent or illegal acts” or otherwise demonstrating “persistent fraud or illegality in the carrying on, conducting or transaction of business.”
As you note, this isn’t a criminal prosecution, which means it doesn’t come with the protections of a criminal trial (such as requiring a unanimous jury verdict), but the flip side of that is that it doesn’t come with the same sanctions etc. of a criminal trial; the State can only get an injunction ordering the person to stop their illegal activity, or damages/restitution awards.
Fewer protections, but less serious results.
Essentially this lets the state enforce the law in a less serious or imposing way than they would by a full criminal trial (with police, arrests, imprisonment etc.).
Not all offenses made illegal in the US are criminal offenses, thus not all cases brought by the state against an individual or entity are criminal cases. And this goes for federal cases as well. For example, when the SEC brings firms to court for violating securities laws, that’s a civil offense, not a criminal one. Now, a single offense can incur both a civil and criminal penalty. For example, if the SEC finds in their investigation that criminal wrongdoing occurred as part of the violation of securities laws (e.g. fraud), they can then refer that evidence to the Department of Justice who then pursues criminal charges.
States are also corporate entities that can engage in contract disputes, etc. If a company can sue you for fraud/lack of payment/damages/etc, then so can a state. For example, if I damage a government building, they can sue me for the repair costs, just like a company can sue me if I damage one of their buildings.
Latest Answers