President Donald Trump and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) have separately petitioned the Supreme Court to overturn a $83.3 million defamation verdict awarded to writer E. Jean Carroll. The case stems from Trump's 2019 denial of Carroll's allegations that he sexually assaulted her in the mid-1990s in a New York department store dressing room.
Immediate Action & Core Facts
Trump's legal team argues that the former president is immune from defamation claims related to statements made while in office. The DOJ, meanwhile, contends that the U.S. government should have been substituted as the defendant under the Westfall Act, which shields federal employees from certain civil claims for conduct performed in their official duties. The petitions follow the Supreme Court's rejection of Trump's appeal in a related $5 million verdict against Carroll in May 2023.
Deeper Dive & Context
Legal Arguments
Trump's petition asserts that the case is unprecedented, as no president has previously faced damages liability for conduct in office. His attorneys cite the Supreme Court's 2024 ruling on presidential immunity, arguing that the Second Circuit Court of Appeals erred by not applying this protection to Trump's statements. The DOJ's petition focuses on procedural grounds, claiming the government should have been allowed to substitute as the defendant, which would have led to the case's dismissal.
Background and Implications
Carroll has won multiple civil verdicts against Trump, totaling $88.3 million over seven years. In May 2023, a jury found Trump liable for sexually abusing Carroll and defaming her in 2022. Carroll has already collected nearly $5.63 million from Trump, including $600,000 in interest. The Supreme Court's decision on the latest petition could set a precedent for future cases involving presidential conduct and defamation claims.
Opposing Perspectives
Trump's legal team frames the case as a threat to presidential immunity, arguing that holding presidents liable for official acts could hinder governance. Carroll's legal team has not publicly responded to the latest filings, but previous statements emphasize the importance of holding public figures accountable for defamatory statements.