Harvey Weinstein’s lawyers celebrated what they called a surprise decision from New York’s highest court on Thursday: the overturning of his 2020 rape case.

“Today’s legal ruling is a great day for America!” cheered Weinstein’s attorney, Arthur Aidala, outside the Manhattan criminal courthouse at 100 Centre Street.

“There are some people who are very unpopular in our society but we still have to apply the law fairly to them and in this courthouse behind us, the law was not applied fairly to Harvey Weinstein,” he said.

The 77-page Court of Appeals ruling determined the jury was improperly influenced during the 2020 trial.

The ruling cited “irrelevant” testimony and “untested allegations” from people other than the two primary accusers — Jessica Mann and Miriam Haley.

The decision likely means a brand new trial. But it’s up to Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg to retry the case.

“We will do everything in our power to retry this case and remain steadfast in our commitment to survivors of sexual assault,” his office said in a statement to NY1.

In the meantime, Weinstein will remain behind bars because he’s also serving a separate sentence handed down by a California judge. He’s expected to appear in court in mid-May to appeal that case.

“His case will be restarted like it just started from the beginning, and he will be transported to a facility down here yet to be determined,” Aidala said.

It’s also up to the women. A new trial means they would have to tell their story in court again.

“Even though the process of testifying was grueling and re-traumatizing for Mimi, she reaffirmed to me today that she would consider testifying again if District Attorney Alvin Bragg decided to proceed with a new trial,” attorney Gloria Allred said in a statement on behalf of Haley.

Attorney Jane Manning, director of the nonprofit Women’s Equal Justice, disagrees with the decision.

“I think it’s a ruling that has generated a tremendous amount of surprise and shock and a feeling of being very disheartened,” she said. “I think it reflects a Court of Appeals that failed to give adequate weight to just how relevant and probative this kind of evidence is and I think they accorded much, too much, weight to the concern that the evidence would be prejudicial to Harvey Weinstein. This jury didn’t act like a prejudiced jury. They acted like a jury that weighed the evidence. They deliberated for days. They asked for read backs of testimony.”

Thursday’s ruling was split in a 4 to 3 decision. 

A former Nassau County District Attorney, Justice Madeline Singas, wrote her own dissenting opinion, arguing the ruling furthers a “disturbing trend” of courts overturning verdicts dealing with sexual violence cases.

“Juries need all the evidence they can get to help them understand what happened between two people,” Manning said. “Evidence that a defendant had a pattern of luring and entrapping and assaulting young women in much the same manner that he lured and entrapped and assaulted the two young women who testified at trial is highly relevant.”

Weinstein’s attorneys say he’s looking forward to testifying in court, which we did not see in 2020.

The former movie producer maintains that the sexual encounters were consensual.