President Donald Trump and the Department of Justice on Tuesday asked the Supreme Court to overturn an $83.3 million civil verdict, arguing that a court has imposed damages liability on a President for his conduct in office for the first time in the nation's history. Trump's lawyers told the court that this unprecedented action sets a dangerous precedent for future leaders.
Trump's legal team asserts he possesses immunity from the defamation claim because his comments about E. Jean Carroll were made in 2019, during his presidency. They cite a 2024 Supreme Court ruling that found presidents have immunity for official acts, contending that "most of a President’s public communications" fall under this protection. The filing highlights the immense financial burden, stating, "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."
Assault on Executive Power
The Justice Department's petition mirrors Trump's argument, suggesting the U.S. government should have been substituted for Trump as the defendant. This substitution, they argue, would have led to the case's dismissal under the Westfall Act, which shields federal employees from certain civil claims for actions performed within their official duties, including defamation. This move underscores the institutional concern over the erosion of presidential authority.
This latest appeal follows the Supreme Court's rejection a month prior of Trump's request to hear his appeal of a separate $5 million verdict in Carroll's favor. That money, plus over $600,000 in interest, has already been released from a court fund where Trump had deposited the funds. Trump is now pursuing a longshot effort to compel the high court to reconsider its refusal in that earlier case.
In May 2023, a Manhattan federal court jury found Trump liable for sexually abusing Carroll in the 1990s and for defaming her in late 2022. The second case, now before the Supreme Court, saw another Manhattan federal court jury in January 2024 find Trump civilly liable for defaming Carroll in 2019. This $83.3 million award was subsequently upheld by the 2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.
The Cost of Dissent
Trump's lawyers contend 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." They maintain that Trump repeatedly asserted this immunity throughout the legal process. CNN reported that Trump warned the justices that an appeals court decision favoring Carroll would "cause significant damage, not only to this president and future presidents" but also to the nation itself.
US Circuit Judge Denny Chin, an Obama nominee, sided with Carroll, writing that presidential immunity was not raised for the first three years of the case. Chin also resisted the effort to substitute the United States as a defendant, stating that "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." This judicial stance highlights the selective application of legal standards against a former president.
Trump has consistently denied wrongdoing in both cases. He told the Supreme Court in an earlier appeal that "There were no eyewitnesses, no video evidence, and no police report or investigation." He also claimed 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."
Weaponizing the Courts
USA Today reported that federal appeals courts upheld both judgments against Trump. The New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in rejecting Trump’s appeal of the $83.3 million judgment, stated the award was reasonable "in light of the extraordinary and egregious facts of this case." The court's review began with the "now-indisputable fact that a jury found in (the other case) that Trump sexually abused Carroll in 1996," which it said precluded another appeal. The appeals court further wrote that the "degree of reprehensibility" of Trump’s conduct was "remarkably high, perhaps unprecedented," and that his comments led to "a multitude of death threats and other threats of physical injury." This narrative frames the former president as uniquely culpable, justifying an extraordinary financial penalty.
With the Supreme Court out of session, it will not consider the appeal until the fall. A decision, if the case is heard, isn't expected until next June, prolonging the legal battle against a figure who continues to challenge the established order. Carroll's attorneys declined to comment on Trump's latest filing. The Justice Department, by signaling its intent to intervene under the Westfall Act, implicitly acknowledges the broader implications for the executive branch, even if it would ultimately mean the end of Carroll's defamation case. This ongoing legal pressure represents a significant institutional effort to constrain a political force.