text: Breaking News Emails Get breaking news alerts and special reports. The news and stories that matter, delivered weekday mornings. 
   
   / Updated By Tom Winter and Dartunorro Clark 
   
   A federal court approved a $25 million settlement on Tuesday with students who said they were duped by Donald Trump and his now-defunct Trump University, which promised to teach them the "secrets of success" in the real estate industry. 
   
   The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco finalized the settlement after it was first approved by a judge last March following an appeal by Sherri Simpson, a Florida woman who said she spent roughly $19,000 on Trump University workshops. Simpson had wanted to opt out of a class action suit in order to pursue a separate suit against Trump, but the court rejected that. 
   
   Students had alleged that Trump University, which was open from 2005 to 2010, used false advertising and high-pressure sales techniques to lure them to free investor workshops at which they were sold expensive seminars and told they would be mentored by real estate gurus, leading to the loss of thousands of dollars in tuition. 
   
   A "one-year apprenticeship" at the educational institute cost $1,495; a "membership" over $10,000; and "Gold Elite" classes ran $35,000. 
   
   Trump faced two lawsuits in California and one in New York, brought by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman. They were folded into one class action suit after Trump was elected, according to court documents. 
   
   Trump paid the $25 million in January of last year, but it was held in escrow until the court upheld the settlement, according to The Associated Press. 
   
   Schneiderman applauded the settlement in a statement. 
   
   "For years, President Trump refused to compensate the victims of his sham university. His reversal in 2016 —and the large-scale settlement that resulted — opened the door for student victims to finally obtain the restitution they deserve," he said. "My office will continue to hold those who commit fraud accountable, no matter how rich or powerful they may be." 
   
   The court said in its ruling that plaintiffs are expected receive 80 percent to 90 percent of what they paid for Trump University programs. 
   
   Trump, who has boasted about his real-estate and investing acumen, rebuffed the claims of fraud during his 2016 presidential campaign and vowed to fight them until the end. 
   
   However, he quickly settled after the election. 
   
   "We are pleased to announce the complete resolution of all litigation involving Trump University," said a Trump University spokesperson when the settlement was announced in November 2016. ||||| Florida bankruptcy lawyer Sherri Simpson wanted to take President Donald Trump to trial over the $19,000 she paid for classes and a mentorship program. | Alan Diaz/AP Photo Appeals court rejects challenge to Trump University settlement The objector wanted to take president to trial over the fraud claims. 
   
   A federal appeals court has upheld the $25 million settlement President Donald Trump agreed to in a bid to resolve long running lawsuits claiming fraud in his Trump University real estate seminar venture. 
   
   The 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals rejected a challenge brought by Florida bankruptcy lawyer Sherri Simpson, who said she wanted to take Trump to trial over the $19,000 she paid for classes and a mentorship program. 
   
   Story Continued Below 
   
   Lawyers for Simpson said notices sent to thousands of Trump University participants earlier in the litigation promised the right to opt out of the class-action suits immediately or after any settlement was proposed, but the three-judge appeals court panel disagreed. 
   
   "Reading the notice as a whole and in context, we conclude that it promised only one opportunity to opt out," Judge Jacqueline Nguyen wrote, joined by Judges Andrew Hurwitz and Steven Logan. "The correct inquiry here is what an average class member would have understood the notice to guarantee ... and the actions of the class members in this case bolster our conclusion that a reasonable reading of the notice precludes Simpson’s interpretation. Among over eight thousand class members, Simpson is the only one advancing this understanding of the notice." 
   
   The most reliable politics newsletter. Sign up for POLITICO Playbook and get the latest news, every morning — in your inbox. Email Sign Up By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time. 
   
   In the 21-page opinion, Nguyen noted arguments from the class-action lawyers who pursued the suits that Simpson's objection seems to have developed late in the process and may have been coached by her attorneys. During arguments last November, one of the lawyers for the class charged that there was "a whole political aspect" to Simpson's objection, suggesting she wanted a trial simply to make a spectacle of the fraud allegations against the president. 
   
   The appeals court panel indicated that was plausible, but said it wasn't a good argument against her objection. 
   
   "Plaintiffs repeatedly characterize Simpson’s argument as 'attorney-manufactured,' The timeline and evolution of her objection support that assertion, but our court would have little work to do without creative arguments 'manufactured' by zealous attorney advocates," Nguyen wrote in a footnote. 
   
   The 9th Circuit also upheld the settlement as fair and reasonable, particularly in light of the complexity involved in seeking to take a president-elect to trial on the eve of his inauguration — the posture the cases were in at the time Trump agreed to settle them just a week or so after winning the election. 
   
   "Both classes of plaintiffs would have faced significant hurdles had they proceeded to trial, including the difficulty of prevailing in a jury trial against either the President Elect (if the trial had proceeded as scheduled) or the sitting President (if the trial had been postponed, as Defendants requested)," Nguyen wrote. "Under these challenging circumstances, the district court acted well within its discretion by approving the settlement." 
   
   The decision clears the way for about 4,000 Trump University participants to receive as much as 90 percent of what they paid, usually between about $1,500 for a seminar up to $35,000 for the top tier mentorship. 
   
   Simpson could delay the settlement further through an appeal to a larger set of 9th Circuit judges or to the Supreme Court, but one of her lawyers said Tuesday she is giving up the fight. 
   
   "I'm not surprised, but we are disappointed that there will never be a public trial on Trump University and that all of the lurid facts about the fraud won't receive the public hearing they deserve," attorney Gary Friedman said. 
   
   Friedman said Simpson's team decided to forego a further appeal so that class members can receive their payments. Lawyers for Trump and his companies had said they would back out of the settlement if Simpson was allowed to proceed with a trial. 
   
   Simpson said a Supreme Court petition would have taken months to resolve and en banc review was unlikely to be granted given the unanimous ruling from the three-judge panel. "It was never something we took lightly, holding up everybody's payment," the attorney added. 
   
   One of the lawyers who pressed the case over Trump University for years, Jason Forge, said Tuesday that he welcomed the ruling and the relative speediness with which the appeals court acted. 
   
   "Thrilled for the students and really grateful the Court recognized the urgency of getting this money to them," Forge said in an email. "Justice expedited is justice extended." 
   
   New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, whose office will distribute $4 million under the settlement, also welcomed the ruling. 
   
   "For years, President Trump refused to compensate the victims of his sham university. His reversal in 2016—and the large-scale settlement that resulted—opened the door for student victims to finally obtain the restitution they deserve," Schneiderman said in a statement. "My office will continue to hold those who commit fraud accountable, no matter how rich or powerful they may be." 
   
   An attorney for Trump did not immediately respond to a request for comment. 
   
   All three appeals court judges assigned to the case were appointed by President Barack Obama. ||||| Amber Eck, one of the lead lawyers in the lawsuits, said it was time to distribute the settlement money to the thousands of former students who sued.
target: – A lengthy legal battle between Donald Trump and Trump University students, who say they paid thousands of dollars for real estate "secrets" they never received, is finally over. On Tuesday, an appeals court in San Francisco approved a $25 million settlement reached last year while rejecting an appeal from a Florida woman who hoped to opt out of the class-action lawsuit and pursue a separate case against Trump, reports NBC News. Sherri Simpson, who says she paid $19,000 for Trump University classes, argued a notice sent to students early in the litigation progress promised they could opt out at the time the notice was sent or after a proposed settlement. But judges said the notice gave "only one opportunity to opt out." They added "among over 8,000 class members, Simpson is the only one advancing this understanding of the notice," per Politico. The decision also referenced claims that Simpson's challenge was politically motivated to hurt the president. Throughout his presidential campaign, Trump vowed to fight allegations that students paid up to $35,000 for Trump University programs based on false promises they'd reveal Trump's "secrets of success," per the Los Angeles Times. Though Trump quickly agreed to the $25 million settlement after his election victory, his lawyers said he'd back out if Simpson were granted a trial. Though "we are disappointed … all of the lurid facts about the fraud won't receive the public hearing they deserve," her lawyer says Simpson will end her fight so that 4,000 students can receive payments. In what the appeals court calls a "highly favorable" deal, students are expected to get 80% to 90% of what they paid to the school while it was open from 2005 to 2010.