Trump asks Supreme Court to overturn $83M E. Jean Carroll defamation verdict

President Donald Trump’s legal team has filed an emergency appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the justices to overturn the $83.3 million defamation judgment awarded to writer E. Jean Carroll. The petition, obtained by Axios, argues that Trump is entitled to presidential immunity because the statements at issue were made while he was serving as president and in response to reporters’ questions about his fitness for office.

The Presidential Immunity Argument

In their filing, Trump’s lawyers contend that the comments Carroll sued over—made in 2019 when Trump denied her sexual assault allegation and attacked her credibility—were official acts performed in the course of his duties. They assert that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit never decided the immunity question on its merits, instead rejecting Trump’s appeal on procedural grounds. The petition warns that allowing the judgment to stand would “constitutionally weaken” the presidency by exposing future chief executives to personal liability for responses to press inquiries about matters of public concern.

A Legal Saga Spanning Years

The case originates from Carroll’s 2019 accusation that Trump sexually assaulted her in a Manhattan department store in the mid-1990s. Trump vehemently denied the claim, sparking a defamation battle that has produced two separate jury verdicts. In May 2023, a jury found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation over statements he made in 2022, awarding Carroll $5 million. Then, in January 2024, a different jury ordered Trump to pay $83.3 million for his 2019 statements—the ones now at issue before the Supreme Court.

Procedural History and Supreme Court Involvement

Trump’s lawyers previously appealed the $83.3 million verdict to the 2nd Circuit, which upheld the judgment without addressing the immunity argument. The Supreme Court is no stranger to this litigation: in June, the justices declined to hear Trump’s challenge to the $5 million verdict, though Trump’s team has since asked the court to reconsider that decision. The current petition marks the second time in two months the high court is being asked to weigh in on Carroll-related matters.

Implications for Presidential Power

Legal experts say the case could set a significant precedent regarding the scope of presidential immunity. Trump’s lawyers argue that without such protection, presidents could be subjected to endless litigation over official communications, hampering their ability to govern. Critics, however, contend that the immunity claimed by Trump stretches historical understandings of executive privilege and that defamatory statements made to defend one’s personal reputation fall outside any official function. The dispute forces the Supreme Court to draw a line between a president’s public statements on policy and purely personal denials of misconduct.

What Comes Next

The Supreme Court will now decide whether to take up Trump’s appeal. If granted, the court could hear oral arguments in the coming months, potentially delivering a landmark ruling on presidential immunity before the 2025 term ends. Meanwhile, Carroll’s legal team has been notified of the filing and is expected to submit a response. As the case unfolds, it remains a flashpoint in the broader debate over the limits of executive power and the accountability of former presidents.