Trump and DOJ Petition Supreme Court to Overturn $83.3 Million E. Jean Carroll Defamation Verdict
President Donald Trump and the Justice Department have asked the Supreme Court to dismiss an $83.3 million defamation judgment, arguing that presidential immunity and the Westfall Act shield him from liability for statements made while in office.
Share this story
The common misconception is that the massive financial judgments against Donald Trump in the E. Jean Carroll defamation saga are already settled law. In reality, while a smaller $5 million judgment was recently finalized, the much larger $83.3 million penalty remains in active dispute. Both Trump's legal team and the Department of Justice have now petitioned the Supreme Court to intervene, seeking to wipe out the verdict entirely by testing the outer limits of presidential immunity.[1]
In late July 2026, Trump's attorneys and federal prosecutors filed separate requests asking the justices to overturn the $83.3 million award, which stems from statements Trump made in 2019 denying Carroll's allegations of a mid-1990s sexual assault. Because those specific comments were made while Trump was serving his first term in the White House, his legal team argues that the Supreme Court's landmark 2024 decision granting presidents broad immunity for official acts must shield him from civil liability in this case.[1]
Trump's lawyers assert that allowing the verdict to stand would cause "significant damage" to the presidency by opening the door to endless litigation over public statements. They argue that responding to public allegations falls within the scope of a president's official duties, and note in their filings that this is the first time in U.S. history a court has imposed damages liability on a president for conduct while in office.[1]
The Justice Department is taking a different but parallel track, seeking to invoke the Westfall Act. This federal law shields government employees from personal liability for actions taken within the scope of their employment. The DOJ argues that because Trump was acting within his federal office when he made the 2019 statements, the United States government should be substituted as the defendant in the case.[1][5]
If the Supreme Court allows the government to swap in as the defendant, the case would effectively collapse. The federal government enjoys sovereign immunity against defamation claims, meaning Carroll's $83.3 million award would be wiped out entirely, leaving her with no avenue to collect the damages awarded by the Manhattan jury.[5]
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit previously rejected these arguments, unanimously upholding the verdict and denying a request for an en banc rehearing in April 2026. The appellate court found that Trump's statements were personal attacks rather than official presidential duties, and that the DOJ's attempt to substitute the government was filed too late in the litigation process.[5]
The stakes are heightened by the timeline of Carroll's other lawsuit. Just weeks after the July petitions, the Supreme Court in mid-August finalized a separate $5 million judgment against Trump for sexual abuse and defamation. That verdict stemmed from statements Trump made in 2022, after he had left office, meaning presidential immunity did not apply. The funds from that judgment, totaling approximately $5.8 million with interest, have already been disbursed to Carroll.[2][3][4]
The Supreme Court is currently on summer recess and is not expected to consider whether to take up the $83.3 million appeal until its "long conference" in late September. The justices' decision on whether to hear the case will serve as a major test of how broadly they intend to apply the immunity doctrine they established just two years prior.[1]
Perspectives explored
Trump Legal Team
Argues that presidential immunity shields the president from civil liability for statements made in office.
Trump's attorneys contend that the Supreme Court's 2024 immunity ruling must apply to civil defamation claims. They argue that responding to public allegations is an inherent part of the presidency, and that allowing the $83.3 million verdict to stand would cripple the executive branch by exposing future presidents to endless personal litigation over their official communications.
Department of Justice
Argues that the Westfall Act requires the government to be substituted as the defendant.
Federal prosecutors maintain that under the Westfall Act, government employees cannot be sued personally for actions taken within the scope of their employment. The DOJ argues that Trump's 2019 statements fall under this umbrella, meaning the United States should replace him as the defendant—a move that would effectively end the case due to sovereign immunity against defamation claims.
E. Jean Carroll's Legal Team
Argues that the statements were personal attacks, not official acts, and that the immunity claims are procedurally invalid.
Carroll's attorneys, backed by the Second Circuit's rulings, argue that Trump's comments were personal, retaliatory attacks that had nothing to do with his presidential duties. They also emphasize that the DOJ's attempt to substitute the government was filed years too late in the litigation process, and that unwinding a duly-rendered jury verdict now would be a profound miscarriage of justice.
Key points
- President Trump and the DOJ have petitioned the Supreme Court to overturn an $83.3 million defamation verdict won by E. Jean Carroll.
- Trump's lawyers argue that the Supreme Court's 2024 presidential immunity decision shields him from civil liability for statements made in 2019.
- The DOJ is seeking to invoke the Westfall Act to substitute the U.S. government as the defendant, which would effectively moot the case.
- The Second Circuit Court of Appeals previously rejected these arguments and upheld the jury's verdict.
Open questions
- Whether the Supreme Court will agree to hear the appeal during its late September conference.
- How the justices will interpret the boundaries of their 2024 presidential immunity ruling in the context of civil defamation.
Timeline
2019
E. Jean Carroll publicly accuses Donald Trump of a mid-1990s sexual assault; Trump denies the allegations while in office.
May 2023
A jury finds Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation for statements made in 2022, awarding Carroll $5 million.
Jan 2024
A second jury awards Carroll $83.3 million in damages for the defamatory statements Trump made in 2019.
Apr 2026
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals upholds the $83.3 million verdict and denies a rehearing.
Jul 2026
Trump and the DOJ petition the Supreme Court to overturn the $83.3 million judgment.
Aug 2026
The Supreme Court finalizes the separate $5 million verdict, allowing the funds to be disbursed to Carroll.
- Accountability Advocates
- Argue that defamatory personal attacks fall outside official duties and no one is above the law.
- Executive Branch Defenders
- Argue that presidents must be shielded from personal liability for public statements to effectively govern.
- Legal Proceduralists
- Focus on the timing of the DOJ's intervention, arguing it was filed too late to unwind a jury verdict.
Perspectives this story doesn't cover
- Future plaintiffs seeking to sue federal officials for defamation
- Constitutional scholars debating the limits of the 2024 immunity ruling
Sources
[1]AP NewsExecutive Branch DefendersTrump and DOJ ask Supreme Court to toss $83 million defamation verdict in E. Jean Carroll case
Read on AP News →
[2]ForbesAccountability AdvocatesTrump Must Pay E. Jean Carroll $5 Million, Supreme Court Finalizes
Read on Forbes →
[3]The GuardianAccountability AdvocatesUS supreme court rejects Trump's bid to appeal $5m E Jean Carroll verdict
Read on The Guardian →
[4]Al JazeeraLegal ProceduralistsUS Supreme Court rebuffs Trump's appeal in E Jean Carroll case
Read on Al Jazeera →
[5]WikipediaLegal ProceduralistsE. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump
Read on Wikipedia →
More in Law & Justice
See all →Preliminary Injunctions
Defining the Four-Factor Test That Controls Preliminary Injunctions in Federal Court
6 sources
Habeas Corpus
Defining the 'Unreasonable Application' Standard That Blocks Federal Habeas Relief for State Prisoners
4 sources
Jurisdictional Limits
The Four Requirements That Block Federal Courts From Rewriting State Judgments
6 sources
Constitutional Law
The Three-Part Calculus That Defines Procedural Due Process in Administrative Law
8 sources
Comments
Every angle. Every day.
Get Law & Justice stories with full source coverage and perspective breakdowns, free every day.




