President Donald Trump and the Department of Justice filed separate petitions Tuesday asking the Supreme Court to overturn an $83.3 million defamation verdict, arguing presidential immunity shields the commander-in-chief from civil liability for statements made while in office. Trump's legal team told the justices this marks "the first case in our Nation's history in which a court has imposed damages liability on a President for his conduct in office."
The case centers on Trump's 2019 statements about writer E. Jean Carroll, who publicly claimed he'd sexually assaulted her in a New York department store dressing room in the mid-1990s. Trump denied the allegations from the White House, issuing a press release and answering reporters' questions about Carroll's claims. A Manhattan federal court jury found him civilly liable for defamation in January 2024, awarding Carroll $83.3 million. The 2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals upheld that verdict.
The Constitutional Question
Trump's attorneys argue the 2024 Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity requires the verdict's reversal. That decision found presidents have immunity for official acts and determined "most of a President's public communications" qualify as official conduct. "Here, the President of the United States has been ordered to pay nearly $100 million in damages — including post-judgment interest — for issuing a press release and answering reporters' questions, from the White House, defending against attacks on his fitness for office," his lawyers wrote.
The legal team contends Trump raised immunity defenses throughout the litigation, including in his answer to the amended complaint and his motion for summary judgment. They argue the 2nd Circuit "wrongly held that President Trump had somehow forfeited the defense of Presidential immunity solely because his first responsive pleading did not invoke Presidential immunity by name."
Justice Department Intervention
The Justice Department's petition echoes Trump's constitutional argument and adds another layer: the department should've been allowed to substitute the U.S. government as defendant because Trump was president when he made the statements. Under the Westfall Act, federal employees receive protection from certain civil claims for conduct performed during their official duties, including defamation. If that substitution had occurred, the case would've been dismissed entirely.
US Circuit Judge Denny Chin, nominated to the bench by President Barack Obama, rejected these arguments. He wrote that "Presidential immunity was not raised for the first three years of this case" and noted "no other defendant would be permitted to move to substitute the United States in his place, fifteen months after trial and the entry of judgment against him."
The Broader Legal Battle
This appeal comes a month after the Supreme Court rejected Trump's request to hear his appeal of a $5 million verdict in Carroll's favor in a separate but related civil case. That May 2023 jury found Trump liable for sexually abusing Carroll in the Bergdorf Goodman department store dressing room in the 1990s and for defaming her in late 2022. Carroll received that money, plus more than $600,000 in interest, from a court fund where Trump had deposited funds to secure the verdict. Trump's launched a longshot effort to get the Supreme Court to reconsider its refusal to hear that appeal.
Carroll claims Trump defamed her when, in 2019, he denied the assault, said she wasn't his type, and claimed she made it up to boost book sales. Trump told the Supreme Court in his earlier appeal: "There were no eyewitnesses, no video evidence, and no police report or investigation." He added, "Instead, Carroll waited more than 20 years to falsely accuse Donald Trump, who she politically opposes, until after he became the 45th president, when she could maximize political injury to him and profit for herself."
The 2nd Circuit said in rejecting Trump's appeal that the $83.3 million judgment was reasonable "in light of the extraordinary and egregious facts of this case." The court noted the record supported findings that Trump's conduct showed a "remarkably high, perhaps unprecedented" degree of reprehensibility. It said Trump's repeated comments about Carroll resulted in "a multitude of death threats and other threats of physical injury," and the jury could find Trump wouldn't stop defaming Carroll without a substantial financial penalty.
Next Steps
The appeal hasn't yet been docketed at the high court. Because the Supreme Court isn't in session over the summer, it won't consider the president's appeal until fall. If it agrees to hear the case, a decision wouldn't likely come until next June. Trump told the justices that an appeals court decision in Carroll's favor would "cause significant damage, not only to this president and future presidents" but also the nation. Carroll's attorneys declined to comment on the latest filing.
Why This Matters:
The constitutional questions at stake extend far beyond this single case. If the Supreme Court agrees with Trump that presidential communications defending against personal attacks constitute official acts immune from civil liability, it would establish unprecedented protection for sitting presidents facing defamation claims. The outcome affects the balance between presidential authority and individual accountability under civil law. For Trump, the financial stakes are substantial—nearly $100 million including post-judgment interest in this case alone, plus the separate $5 million verdict. The Justice Department's parallel argument about the Westfall Act raises questions about when taxpayers should bear responsibility for a president's statements. If federal employees broadly receive immunity for official conduct, determining which presidential communications qualify becomes critical. The court's decision will shape how future presidents navigate public responses to personal allegations and define the boundaries of executive immunity in civil litigation.