Trump Seeks Supreme Court Review in $83.3 Million Defamation Case

Why it matters locally: While this case does not directly impact Idaho's economy or specific state policies, the Supreme Court's potential ruling on presidential immunity could set precedents affecting the powers and liabilities of federal officeholders, which is of general interest to Idaho residents.

---

WASHINGTON – Attorneys representing former President Donald Trump and the federal government on Tuesday requested the Supreme Court hear an appeal related to a defamation case brought by journalist E. Jean Carroll. A jury previously awarded Carroll $83.3 million, a verdict upheld by a federal appeals court in New York. Trump's legal team informed the Supreme Court that the lower court's decision "wrongly eviscerates Presidential immunity." They stated this case marks the first instance in U.S. history where a court imposed damages liability on a president for actions taken while in office. Carroll, a former advice columnist for Elle magazine, initiated her lawsuit against Trump in November 2019, during his first presidential term. Carroll alleged Trump sexually abused her in a New York department store dressing room in 1996. Her lawsuit claimed Trump defamed her in June 2019 by calling her a liar and asserting he had never met her, that her accusations were "totally false," and that she aimed to sell a book that "should be sold in the fiction section." In January 2024, a jury awarded Carroll $83.3 million, encompassing both compensatory and punitive damages. Trump appealed this award to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. The 2nd Circuit affirmed the award last year, finding "ample evidence that Trump was recklessly indifferent to Carroll’s health and safety" and that "Carroll was subjected to ongoing and prolific harassment as a result of these statements, including a multitude of death threats and other threats of physical injury." The full appeals court declined to rehear the case in April. In his Tuesday filing, Trump's private lawyer, Robert Giuffra, argued the 2nd Circuit did not determine whether Trump's statements qualified for immunity, bypassing the issue through "procedural contortions." Giuffra cited a 2024 Supreme Court indication that "most of a President’s public communications are likely to fall comfortably within" presidential protection. Giuffra wrote that allowing the $83.3 million award to stand risks making all presidents "unable to boldly and fearlessly carry out [their] duties for fear that [they] may be next" due to the threat of a single damages judgment for official acts. This filing marks the second Carroll-related case presented to the Supreme Court. On June 29, the Supreme Court rejected Trump's appeal in a separate case where a jury found him liable for sexually abusing and defaming Carroll, awarding her $5 million. In that prior appeal, Trump argued against the introduction of testimony from other women alleging assault by him and the 2005 "Access Hollywood" tape. Trump filed a petition for rehearing for that case on July 8, which the court has not yet acted upon. Carroll has already received the $5 million award, plus interest, which was held in escrow. In a separate Tuesday filing, the federal government also urged the Supreme Court to review the case. The government asked the court to decide if the appeals court should have granted former Attorney General Pamela Jo Bondi’s request to recertify that Trump made his statements as part of his presidential role. Such recertification would mean the federal government, not Trump, would be the defendant in Carroll's case. Former Attorney General William Barr initially certified in 2020 that Trump acted as president when making the statements central to the case. However, Attorney General Merrick Garland, under President Joe Biden, withdrew that certification in 2023. The 2nd Circuit rejected Bondi’s April 2025 request to recertify Trump. The court reasoned that the Westfall Act, which governs the substitution of the federal government for federal employees, required the attorney general to make the certification before Trump’s 2024 trial. Acting Solicitor General Hashim Mooppan called the 2nd Circuit's decision not to grant Bondi's recertification request "illogical." Mooppan stated that once the case moved to federal court, the Westfall Act's "plain language" did not impose any time limit, particularly a pre-trial restriction, on when recertification must occur. Carroll’s responses to these petitions are due 30 days after their docketing, though she may request an extension.