A federal appeals court has upheld an $83.3 million defamation judgment against President Donald J. Trump, siding with journalist and author E. Jean Carroll in a high-profile legal battle that continues to reverberate through both legal and political arenas.
In a decision issued Tuesday, a three-judge panel from the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously rejected Trump’s arguments that the jury’s original verdict was flawed. The court found that the jury’s damages award was fair, reasonable, and supported by overwhelming evidence of Trump's malicious intent and “extraordinary” misconduct.
“The record supports a finding that Mr. Trump’s conduct was remarkably high, perhaps unprecedented, in its reprehensibility,” the panel wrote in its opinion.
The decision is the latest legal blow to Trump while facing multiple ongoing criminal and civil investigations.
📚 Background: How the Case Unfolded
The case stems from Carroll’s public accusation in 2019 that Trump had sexually assaulted her in the mid-1990s in a department store dressing room in Manhattan. Trump, then serving as president, vehemently denied the allegations, calling Carroll a liar and claiming he had never met her — despite photographic evidence to the contrary.
He made several public and social media statements attacking Carroll’s credibility, character, and mental state. Carroll filed a defamation lawsuit in response, arguing that Trump’s repeated denials and personal attacks had severely damaged her reputation and career.
In 2023, a separate civil trial found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation, awarding Carroll $5 million in damages. That verdict set the stage for a second defamation trial in January 2024, which focused on Trump’s statements made after the first ruling — including posts on Truth Social and remarks during political rallies.
That second jury awarded Carroll $83.3 million in total damages:
- $18.3 million in compensatory damages
- $65 million in punitive damages
Appeals Court: Immunity and First Amendment Arguments Rejected
Trump's legal team had appealed the verdict, arguing primarily that:
-
He was protected by presidential immunity, since the comments were made while he was in office.
-
The damages awarded were excessive, and the trial court had not properly instructed the jury.
-
His statements were protected under the First Amendment as free political speech.
But the appeals court disagreed on all counts.
The panel clarified that presidential immunity does not apply to defamatory statements that fall outside the scope of official duties. Furthermore, the judges stated that the magnitude of the damages reflected the seriousness of the harm caused, the repeated nature of Trump’s attacks, and the clear evidence of malice.
“This case is not about political speech protected by the First Amendment,” the opinion read. “It is about knowingly false statements made with the intent to punish and discredit a private citizen who accused him of serious misconduct.”
Reactions from Both Sides
E. Jean Carroll’s Legal Team
Carroll and her attorneys praised the decision, calling it a powerful affirmation of truth and accountability.
“The court’s ruling confirms what two juries have already said: Donald Trump is responsible for maliciously defaming E. Jean Carroll and must face the consequences,” said attorney Roberta Kaplan.
Carroll released a brief statement following the decision:
“Justice matters. Truth matters. And no one not even a president is above the law.”
Trump’s Response
Donald Trump blasted the ruling in a statement posted on his social media platform, Truth Social.
“Another politically motivated attack a total witch hunt,” Trump wrote. “This is election interference, plain and simple.”
His legal team indicated plans to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, though legal experts say the high court is unlikely to intervene, given the lower courts’ consistent rulings.
🧠 Legal Experts: Strong Precedent for Accountability
Legal scholars say the decision is significant not only for Carroll but also for the broader question of holding powerful figures accountable for defamatory conduct — even when those figures have held the nation’s highest office.
“The court has drawn a clear line in the sand,” said Professor Barbara McQuade, a former U.S. attorney and law professor at the University of Michigan. “This is a landmark case for victims of defamation and harassment by public officials.”
The decision could set a precedent in future cases involving public figures who use digital platforms to discredit accusers or critics.
- Federal indictments related to classified documents
- Charges connected to election interference in Georgia
- Civil cases involving business fraud in New York
Though Trump has used legal troubles to galvanize support among his base, polling shows that ongoing litigation could undermine his standing among swing voters and independents.
“The image of a candidate who is repeatedly found liable for defamation and abuse is not one that appeals to undecided voters,” said political strategist Sarah Longwell. “At some point, the legal weight becomes a political burden.”
Meanwhile, Carroll is expected to begin the process of enforcing the judgment, which could lead to asset disclosures or other financial proceedings if Trump resists payment.
For now, the ruling stands as one of the most consequential legal rebukes of Trump’s post-presidency behavior and a strong statement about the enduring importance of truth in public discourse.
0 Comments