Former President Donald Trump and the Department of Justice have separately petitioned the Supreme Court to overturn an $83.3 million defamation award granted to writer E. Jean Carroll. The civil verdict, issued earlier this year, found Trump liable for statements made in 2019 while he was president, denying Carroll’s claim that he sexually assaulted her in a New York department store dressing room in the mid-1990s.

Trump’s legal team argues that he is immune from the defamation claim because his comments were made during his presidency. Their petition to the Supreme Court asserts that this is the first instance in U.S. history where a court has imposed damages liability on a president for conduct while in office. Citing a recent 2024 Supreme Court ruling that established presidential immunity for official acts, including most public communications, Trump’s attorneys contend that the verdict in the Carroll case should be overturned. They highlight that the former president is being ordered to pay a substantial sum for defending himself against accusations while serving in the White House.

The Department of Justice’s petition echoes a key argument from Trump’s filing: that the U.S. government should have been substituted for Trump as the defendant in the lawsuit. Had this substitution been permitted, the case would likely have been dismissed under the Westfall Act, which shields federal employees from certain civil claims, including defamation, for actions performed within the scope of their duties. Trump’s lawyers also argue that the 2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals wrongly concluded that he forfeited his presidential immunity defense.

This current legal challenge follows a separate, but related, civil case where the Supreme Court previously rejected Trump’s request to appeal a $5 million verdict in Carroll’s favor. In that earlier case, a Manhattan federal court jury in May 2023 found Trump liable for sexual abuse and for defaming Carroll in late 2022. The $83.3 million award, which is the subject of the new Supreme Court petition, stems from a January 2024 jury finding Trump civilly liable for defaming Carroll in 2019 after she publicly accused him of rape.

Key Takeaways

• Donald Trump and the Department of Justice have petitioned the Supreme Court to overturn an $83.3 million defamation award to E. Jean Carroll.
• Trump's legal team argues for presidential immunity, citing a recent Supreme Court ruling that protects presidents for official acts, including public communications made while in office.
• The DOJ's separate petition suggests the U.S. government should have been substituted as the defendant under the Westfall Act, which would shield federal employees from certain civil claims.

Editor’s Analysis & Impact

This Supreme Court challenge carries significant implications for the scope of presidential immunity and accountability. A ruling in favor of Trump could broaden the protections afforded to sitting and former presidents for statements made while in office, potentially making it more difficult for individuals to seek redress for alleged defamation or other civil harms. Conversely, upholding the verdict would reinforce the idea that even presidents are not entirely above civil liability for their public statements, particularly when they relate to personal conduct. The decision will shape future legal strategies in cases involving high-ranking government officials and could influence the public’s perception of executive power and its limits. It will be a landmark ruling clarifying the boundaries between official presidential duties and personal actions in the context of civil law.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What is the basis of the $83.3 million award to E. Jean Carroll?
A: The award stems from a January 2024 jury verdict in a Manhattan federal court, which found Donald Trump civilly liable for defaming E. Jean Carroll in 2019 when he publicly denied her claims of sexual assault.

Q: What is presidential immunity, and how does it apply in this case?
A: Presidential immunity generally shields a president from civil liability for official acts performed while in office. Trump's lawyers argue that his 2019 statements denying Carroll's claims were official acts, thus protected under this immunity, citing a recent Supreme Court ruling on the matter.

Q: Why is the Department of Justice invoking the Westfall Act?
A: The DOJ argues that under the Westfall Act, the U.S. government should have been substituted as the defendant for Trump, as his statements were made while he was a federal employee (President) and allegedly within the scope of his duties. If this substitution were allowed, the case would likely be dismissed, as federal employees are shielded from certain civil claims like defamation under the Act.