The $83.3 million E. Jean Carroll defamation judgment remains in force while Donald Trump asks the Supreme Court to review it.
Supporters emphasize presidential immunity, critics cite procedural failures and evidence of harm, and appellate judges have divided over the legal reasoning. Trump petitioned the Supreme Court on July 28, 2026, after the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment and denied rehearing. The Supreme Court docket shows no decision yet on whether the justices will hear the case.
Table of Contents
- What does the $83.3 million judgment cover?
- What are Trump and his supporters arguing?
- Why did the Second Circuit reject those arguments?
- Where are legal experts divided?
- What should readers watch next?
What does the $83.3 million judgment cover?
A january 2024 jury awarded Carroll $18.3 million in compensatory damages and $65 million in punitive damages. The case concerned Trump's 2019 denials of Carroll's allegations, but liability had already been resolved before the damages trial. The Second Circuit upheld the entire award.
Its September 2025 decision also cited evidence that Carroll's freelance income fell 99% and television opportunities disappeared. The court found the $7.3 million compensatory award unrelated to reputation-repair costs reasonable under New York law. That evidence gives critics of Trump's excessive-verdict argument a concrete answer: the damages reflected documented professional and personal harm, not merely offensive language.
What are Trump and his supporters arguing?
trump's central claim is that his white House statement and answers to reporters were official presidential acts. Because he was responding to allegations affecting his fitness for office, his supporters argue that presidential immunity should protect those statements. His Supreme Court petition relies on Trump v. United States, the Supreme Court's 2024 criminal-immunity decision.
Trump maintains that the Second Circuit should have reconsidered his civil-immunity defense in light of that ruling. He also argues that he never explicitly surrendered presidential immunity. Separately, he says the Attorney General's 2025 Westfall Act certification required replacing him with the United States as the defendant. The Westfall Act issue concerns whether statements fell within a federal official's employment.
Why did the Second Circuit reject those arguments?
The Second Circuit treated timing as decisive. It had previously ruled that presidential immunity can be waived, and it found that Trump failed to assert that defense in his initial answer. The court concluded that Trump v. United States did not alter this procedural result because that case addressed criminal immunity.
It also rejected the Westfall Act argument as raised too late. On liability, the court relied on the earlier carroll II verdict. That verdict established that Trump sexually abused Carroll and that his 2022 denials were false. Trump also did not appeal the district court's alternative finding that his 2019 statements were made with actual malice.
Where are legal experts divided?
The Second Circuit's decision was not legally unanimous. Judge Steven Menashi, joined by Judge Michael Park and then-Chief Judge Debra Ann Livingston, dissented when the full court declined to rehear the case. Their April 2026 dissent argued that the litigation mishandled presidential immunity, issue preclusion, and damages.
Issue preclusion is the rule that can prevent parties from relitigating questions already resolved in an earlier case. The dissent gives Trump a developed legal critique to present to the Supreme Court. It did not change the controlling result, however: the full Second Circuit denied rehearing, leaving the judgment intact.
What should readers watch next?
A Supreme Court petition is a request for review, not a reversal of the judgment. Carroll's response was due August 31, 2026, and the Court had not yet decided whether to take the case.
Readers following the appeal should distinguish among three possible docket developments: The case's broader importance reaches beyond this damages award. Supreme Court review could clarify when a president's public statements qualify as official acts and when procedural delay prevents an immunity defense.
- Carroll's response to Trump's petition.
- An order granting or denying Supreme Court review.
- Any later ruling on immunity or Westfall Act protection if review is granted.