Trump files Supreme Court petition to toss $83 million E Jean Carroll defamation judgment
Trump’s Lawyers File Petition to Overturn $83.3 Million Defamation Judgment
In a bid to wipe the civil damages imposed on him, attorneys representing former President Donald Trump filed a petition Tuesday with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to dismiss the $83.3 million judgment that a federal jury in New York awarded to former magazine columnist E. Jean Carroll. The request argues that President Trump should enjoy the same presidential immunity that shields past and future presidents from civil liability for official acts.
The filing, drafted by Robert J. Giuffra, co‑chairman of the Sullivan & Cromwell law firm, and Michael C. Martinich‑Sauter of the James Otis Law Group, asserts that the Second Circuit erred in refusing to apply presidential immunity to the statements Trump made from the White House in 2019. “This is 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 petition states. It continues, “Yet, in upholding the exorbitant $83.3 million defamation judgment here, the Second Circuit never even decided whether Presidential immunity applies to President Trump’s allegedly defamatory statements—statements made from the White House, in response to press questions, denying allegations of personal misconduct directly questioning his fitness for office.”
The petition cites the Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling that “most of a President’s public communications are likely to fall comfortably within” the protection of presidential immunity, and accuses the Second Circuit of “refusing to apply Presidential immunity even after this Court recognized that ... protection.” The attorneys argue that allowing the judgment to stand would “cause significant damage, not only to this President and future Presidents, but also to ‘the Nation that the Presidency was designed to serve.’” They add, “It would seriously cripple the proper and effective administration of government if Presidents feared that their official acts could result in damages liability. That is why immunity for official Presidential acts is necessary.”
The lawsuit stems from allegations that Trump sexually assaulted Carroll at a department store in the 1990s. Carroll sued Trump in 2019 after he denied the accusations in a 2019 interview with a reporter at the White House. A New York federal jury in 2023 found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation, but not for rape, and ordered him to pay $5 million. In January 2024 a new jury awarded Carroll $18.3 million in compensatory damages and $65 million in punitive damages, a total of $83.3 million. A judge in March 2024 ordered Trump to pay the full amount or post a bond to satisfy the judgment.
Trump’s legal team had previously sought a rehearing of the appeal in April, which the Second Circuit denied. In the meantime, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the jury’s verdict in the case, prompting Trump to vow he would “continue the fight.” The petition now seeks to reverse the judgment on the grounds of presidential immunity.
A representative for Carroll’s legal team declined to comment on the new filing, though the team had earlier acknowledged that the Second Circuit had upheld the $83.3 million judgment. The case remains pending before the Second Circuit, which must decide whether the immunity doctrine applies to statements made by a sitting president in response to a press inquiry.
The outcome of Trump’s petition will have implications beyond the present dispute, as the court’s ruling could clarify the extent to which presidents are shielded from civil lawsuits stemming from their official communications. If the judgment is reversed, it could set a precedent that future presidents might rely on to avoid civil liability for statements made in the course of their official duties. If the court upholds the judgment, it would reinforce the principle that the presidency is not above the law in civil matters.
Lawyers for Trump have emphasized that the potential damage to the nation’s governance and future presidents outweighs the financial consequences for the former president. Whether the court agrees with that assessment remains to be seen. The Second Circuit is expected to rule on the petition in the coming weeks, and its decision could reshape the legal landscape for presidential conduct and civil liability.
