New York's highest court has upheld the limited gag order in Donald Trump's civil fraud trial.

"On the Court's own motion, appeal dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved. Motion for a stay dismissed as academic," New York's Court of Appeals said in a two-sentence ruling issued Tuesday.

The gag order barred Trump and his lawyers from commenting on Judge Arthur Engoron's staff during the former president's 11-week civil fraud trial.

A decision in the case is expected later this month, after closing arguments wrapped up last week.

New York State Attorney General Letitia James, speaking to reporters outside court following the conclusion of closing arguments, dismissed the idea that her case against Donald Trump is about politics.

"This case has never been about politics, personal vendetta, or about name calling. This case is about the facts and the law, and Mr. Donald Trump violated the law," James said.

James thanked her team, the judge, and Trump's lawyers before repeating her confidence that "justice will be done" in the case.

"No matter how powerful you are, no matter how rich you are, no one is above the law," she said.

Judge Arthur Engoron asked state attorney Kevin Wallace to conclude the day's proceedings by comparing Trump's fraud to the actions of financier Bernie Madoff, who defrauded clients out of tens of billions of dollars in the 1990s and 2000s.

"How would you compare the fraud you are alleging to the Madoff Ponzi scheme?" Engoron said.

During a meandering response, Wallace acknowledged that Trump's fraud was smaller, but "significant given the dollar amounts involved."

"If you are rich enough, you going to be allowed to do it. You'll get away with it," Wallace said.

Engoron concluded the day by estimating that he would issue an opinion in the case by Jan. 31.

He then ended the proceedings.

The buck stopped at Donald Trump, and the court should hold him responsible for his company's actions, according to state attorney Andrew Amer.

"The buck stopped with him, so he was responsible for all the conduct I just reviewed," Amer said about Trump's conduct between 2011 and 2015, before his sons took over the company when Trump won the White House.

Though defense attorneys have repeatedly criticized the testimony of former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen, Amer highlighted that Trump's lawyers never questioned the former president about his testimony that Trump instructed Cohen and then-CEO Allen Weisselberg to "reverse engineer" his financial statement to increase his net worth.

"Based on their decision not to question Mr. Trump on this critical point, the court should infer that the reverse engineering instructions were given by Mr. Trump, just as Mr. Cohen described," Amer said.

Amer also highlighted what he said was Eric Trump's inconsistent testimony about his knowledge of his father's statement of financial condition.

"He went to great lengths to conceal from this court that he was fully aware that his father had a personal financial statement," Amer said, claiming that Eric Trump and his brother Donald Trump Jr. "approved of and perpetuated those schemes with the intent to defraud."

Judge Engoron, however, appeared skeptical of Amer's argument about Trump's adult sons -- particularly Donald Trump Jr. -- and interrupted the summation to question Amer.

"What evidence do you have -- I just haven't seen it -- that they knew there was fraud?" Engoron said.

Amer responded that the sons should have known about the fraud given their role in the company, and that their inaction amounted to "sticking their heads in the sand."

"They can't say they didn't bother paying attention to it. That is just not a defense," Amer contended.

Donald Trump's lawyers, in a court filing this morning, doubled down on their criticism of the trial's limited gag order while distancing Trump and his co-defendants from what they called the "vile and reprehensible" threats against Judge Arthur Engoron and his principal law clerk.

In a filing arguing against the limited gag order, defense lawyer Clifford Robert said that the attacks -- which he said Trump neither condoned nor directed -- do not justify the gag order's unconstitutional restraint on Trump's free speech.

"Respondents' sole cognizable justification for the Gag Orders is that an unknown third party may react in a hostile or offensive manner to Petitioners' speech," Robert wrote.

While Robert characterized the threats as "disturbing, derogatory, and indefensible," he argued that it could not be proven that Trump's Truth Social post on Oct. 3 -- which prompted the limited gag order prohibiting statements about the judge's staff -- led to an increase in threats. Trump and his lawyers have never called for violence, condoned the attacks, or encouraged threatening behavior, Robert said.

The threatening behavior "merits appropriate security measures," Robert wrote. "However, it does not justify the wholesale abrogation of Petitioners' First Amendment rights in a proceeding of immense stakes to Petitioners," which Robert argued has been "compromised by the introduction of partisan bias on the bench."