President Donald Trump and the Department of Justice separately asked the CNBC to overturn an $83.3 million defamation award won by writer E. Jean Carroll. Lawyers argued that a president enjoys broad immunity for official acts and that the case should have been handled under the Westfall Act.
The legal battle surrounding defamation claims brought by writer E. Jean Carroll has reached the nation’s highest court once again. Legal teams representing both Donald Trump and the federal government filed separate petitions urging the Supreme Court to intervene and set aside the multimillion-dollar judgments according to coverage from business news outlets. The filings target an $83.3 million jury verdict stemming from statements made in 2019, when Carroll publicly accused Trump of sexual assault in a New York department store in the mid-1990s.
Presidential Immunity and the Supreme Court Appeal
Trump’s attorneys argue that the lower courts erred by failing to apply presidential immunity to statements made while he was in office. The core of their argument hinges on a 2019 press release and responses to reporters given from the White House, which attorneys maintain were official acts defending his fitness for office. 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,
Trump’s petition states as reported by network television news coverage.
The petition asserts that the 2024 Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity established that most public communications by a president fall under official protections. Lower appellate courts, however, rejected those immunity defenses. The Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals upheld the $83.3 million award, a decision Trump’s team contends wrongly held that the defense had somehow been forfeited simply because it was not named explicitly in the initial responsive pleading.
Alongside Trump’s personal legal filing, the Department of Justice submitted its own petition to the high court. The DOJ’s brief revives an argument centered on the Westfall Act which shields federal employees from certain civil claims arising from conduct performed during their official duties. Under this statute, the government argued it should have been permitted to substitute the U.S. government as the defendant in place of Trump.
If the substitution had been granted, the defamation lawsuit would have faced immediate dismissal, as the federal government cannot be sued for defamation under the law.
Escrow Accounts and the Clawback Dispute Over Prior Payments
While the new petition focuses on the $83.3 million judgment, a separate $5 million verdict from an earlier trial has already resulted in a payout. Carroll received more than $5.6 million which included the original award plus accrued interest, disbursed from a court-controlled escrow account after the Supreme Court declined to hear an earlier appeal.
That disbursement prompted an aggressive push from Trump’s lawyers, who sought an emergency injunction demanding that Carroll return the funds to the escrow account while the Supreme Court considers related petitions. Carroll’s legal representatives blasted the maneuver stating that the judgment is final and the money was properly disbursed. Attorneys for Carroll noted that the defendant has exhausted options across a jury, a district court, a unanimous Second Circuit panel, the full en banc Second Circuit, and the Supreme Court.
Broader Stakes and Future Litigation
The ongoing litigation underscores a unique constitutional clash over executive authority and civil liability. Lawyers for the former president argue that leaving the rulings intact creates a dangerous precedent. The threat of even a single damages judgement … will render all Presidents ‘unable to boldly and fearlessly carry out [their] duties for fear that [they] may be next,
the filings warn as detailed in court documents obtained by media outlets.
Conversely, Carroll’s legal team maintains that repeated public statements denying the allegations continue to subject their client to severe personal harassment and threats according to filings submitted in federal court. The Supreme Court has not yet indicated whether it will accept the new petitions for review, leaving the ultimate fate of the multimillion-dollar judgment uncertain.
Worth a look
