A federal appeals court on Monday rejected President Donald Trump’s attempt to overturn an $83.3 million jury verdict against him for defaming writer E. Jean Carroll. The case revolves around Carroll’s accusation that Trump sexually assaulted her in 1996, a claim he has consistently denied, while making statements that she says damaged her reputation.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan dismissed Trump’s argument that he was entitled to presidential immunity. If the court had sided with him, it would have nullified the January 2024 verdict. Instead, the appeals judges upheld the jury’s decision, delivering another major legal setback for Trump.
In a unanimous opinion, the three-judge panel wrote, “The jury’s duly rendered damages awards were reasonable in light of the extraordinary and egregious facts of this case.” The judges emphasized that the award reflected the severity of Trump’s actions and their impact on Carroll’s life and career.
Neither the White House nor Trump’s personal lawyers immediately responded to requests for comment. Legal experts noted that the ruling reinforces the principle that a sitting or president cannot claim immunity from civil lawsuits for actions unrelated to official duties.
This decision follows a related ruling by the same court on June 13. On that date, the 2nd Circuit upheld a separate $5 million jury verdict in Carroll’s favor from May 2023. That case also involved defamation claims stemming from sexual assault allegations. Together, the rulings represent significant victories for Carroll and her legal team.
Carroll, 81, is a columnist for Elle magazine who has had a long career in journalism. She accused Trump of attacking her in a Bergdorf Goodman department store dressing room around 1996. Trump publicly denied her claim for the first time in June 2019. At the time, he told a reporter that Carroll was “not my type” and suggested she had fabricated the story to sell her memoir, What Do We Need Men For?
Trump repeated similar statements in an October 2022 post on his social media platform, Truth Social. Those comments ultimately contributed to the $5 million defamation verdict. The jury did not, however, find that Trump had raped Carroll, focusing instead on the statements he made denying her allegations.
The $83.3 million award breaks down into $18.3 million for emotional and reputational harm and $65 million in punitive damages. Legal analysts say the punitive damages are intended to send a strong message about the seriousness of Trump’s actions and the broader consequences of defamation.
In his most recent appeal, Trump argued that a July 2024 U.S. Supreme Court decision granting him substantial criminal immunity should also shield him from Carroll’s civil lawsuit. He further claimed that his 2019 comments about Carroll were made in his official capacity as president, warning that denying him immunity could undermine the independence of the Executive Branch.
Trump also argued that U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan, who oversaw both trials, had committed errors during the proceedings. Among other issues, he claimed the judge improperly excluded his testimony that he spoke about Carroll to defend himself, his family, and the presidency. Courts, however, have consistently rejected these arguments, reaffirming that public figures cannot defame someone without consequence, even if they hold high office.
[inline_related_posts title=”RECOMMENDED” title_align=”left” style=”list” number=”2″ align=”none” ids=”” by=”primary_cat” orderby=”rand” order=”DESC” hide_thumb=”no” thumb_right=”no” views=”no” date=”yes” grid_columns=”2″ post_type=”” tax=””]
In June, Carroll released a new memoir, Not My Type: One Woman vs. a President, which chronicles her legal battles against Trump and her personal experience with the accusations. The book provides further insight into the impact of the case on her life and highlights her persistence in seeking accountability.
Legal experts say the ruling could have broader implications for other lawsuits against Trump. According to Reuters, observers note that the decision reinforces that presidents are not above the law and that defamation claims can carry substantial financial consequences. The case remains a high-profile example of accountability in the intersection of politics, power, and personal conduct.
