Trump fails to overturn E. Jean Carroll’s $83 million verdict
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit has firmly rejected former President Donald Trump’s attempt to overturn a staggering $83.3 million jury verdict awarded to writer E. Jean Carroll. The ruling comes after Carroll won the civil case in January 2024, finding Trump liable for defamation following his public denial of her rape claims. The appellate court affirmed both the judgment and the underlying evidence—refusing to extend presidential immunity to shield Trump from civil accountability.
The verdict includes a breakdown of $18.3 million in compensatory damages and a punitive portion of $65 million, reflecting the court’s judgment on the severity of Trump’s conduct. His appeal had invoked the Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling that granted criminal immunity to sitting presidents, asserting it should apply to civil matters as well. The appellate court disagreed, emphasizing that such immunity does not extend to defamatory statements made outside official duties.
This appeal follows a separate $5 million defamation verdict Trump faced in 2023—also tied to Carroll’s allegations—which was upheld earlier this year. Together, the two case outcomes affirm Carroll’s claims on both defamation and sexual abuse. During the latest case, Judge Lewis Kaplan had overseen damage deliberations, and a unanimous appeals panel found no reversible error in either trial or jury instructions.
Carroll’s legal team welcomed the decision, arguing it affirms the recklessness and harm of Trump’s public attacks. As the appeals court emphasized, Carroll endured a “storm of hate” and serious threats—making the punitive damages justified and “reasonable.” Meanwhile, Trump’s attorneys continue to characterize the case as politically motivated, signaling an intention to escalate the matter to the Supreme Court.
The retention of this judgment marks a pivotal moment in the interplay between presidential political speech and personal accountability.
y allowing civil liability to stand, the courts reaffirm that public remarks—even by presidents—can invoke consequences when defamatory and harmful. The case wraps a significant chapter for Carroll, offering her vindication, yet the judiciary’s decision may also influence legal boundaries for statements made under the mantle of political speech going forward.
Key Legal Outcomes
-
Appeals court upholds $83.3M verdict—rejects Trump’s appeal and his presidential immunity claim.
-
Jury verdict split: $18.3M compensatory and $65M punitive damages awarded.
-
Supreme Court immunity doctrine not extended to civil defamation cases.
-
Two Carroll verdicts upheld—$5M (2023) and $83.3M standalone cases both affirmed.
-
Trump’s plan to escalate to SCOTUS remains active.
Why It Matters
-
Limits on executive immunity: Even a president isn’t beyond civil repercussions for harmful statements.
-
Vindication for defamation victims: Carroll’s case underscores the importance of accountability for reputation damage.
-
Encouragement for survivors speaking out: The decision strengthens public faith in seeking justice via legal routes.
-
Set precedent for political speech boundaries: Public figures may face consequences when defamation impacts personal safety and livelihood.
-
Potential Supreme Court ripple effects: If taken up, this case could clarify the scope of immunity and reshape defamation standards.
Publication Details & Source
- Publication Date: September 8, 2025
- Source: Reuters — “Trump fails to overturn E. Jean Carroll’s $83.3 million verdict” (reuters.com)
- This is corroborated by coverage from the Associated Press and Washington Post, highlighting the appellate court’s decision to uphold the significant defamation verdict.
