Donald Trump cannot claim presidential immunity to get off the hook from paying $83.3m in damages to the writer E Jean Carroll, a federal appeals court ruled on Monday, upholding a jury’s 2024 award against the president for defamation.
Trump’s lawyers had pointed to the supreme court’s ruling last year saying the president has immunity for official acts to argue that the damages should be overturned. A three-judge panel for the US court of appeals for the second circuit, rejected that argument.
“The jury’s duly rendered damages awards were reasonable in light of the extraordinary and egregious facts of this case,” the judges wrote in their unanimous opinion. The panel consisted of judges Denny Chin, an appointee of Barack Obama, as well as Sarah AL Merriam and Maria Araújo Kahn, both appointees of Joe Biden. Their decision was unanimous.
At an earlier stage in the case, they also concluded Trump had waived his right to argue presidential immunity because he had not raised it earlier.
“We conclude that Trump has failed to identify any grounds that would warrant reconsidering our prior holding on presidential immunity,” the panel wrote. “A case involving the criminal prosecution of a former President, did not alter the prevailing law on whether presidential immunity can be waived.” Justin Smith, a lawyer for Trump, had argued that presidential immunity is “not waivable”, according to Politico.
Neither the White House nor Trump’s personal lawyers in the case immediately responded to requests for comment. The second circuit on 13 June upheld Carroll’s separate $5m jury verdict against Trump in May 2023 for a similar defamation and for sexual assault.
Carroll, 81, a former Elle magazine columnist, accused Trump of attacking her around 1996 in a Bergdorf Goodman department store dressing room.
Trump first denied her claim in June 2019, telling a reporter that Carroll was “not my type” and had concocted the story to sell her memoir What Do We Need Men For?
He essentially repeated his comments in an October 2022 Truth Social post, leading to the $5m verdict, though the jury did not find that Trump had raped Carroll.
The $83.3m award comprised $18.3m of damages for emotional and reputational harm, and $65m of punitive damages. In his latest appeal, Trump argued that the US supreme court’s July 2024 decision providing him with substantial criminal immunity shielded him from liability in Carroll’s civil case.
He also said he had spoken about Carroll in 2019 in his capacity as president, and that failing to give him immunity could undermine the independence of the executive branch.
Trump also said US district judge Lewis Kaplan, who oversaw both trials, had made other mistakes, including whether he had wrongly prevented Trump from litigating the falsity of Trump’s allegations by striking out his testimony that, in speaking about Carroll: “I just wanted to defend myself, my family, and frankly the presidency.” The panel ruled Kaplan had not erred in either instance.
Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond, said that the ruling was significant because it affirms substantial “punitive damages” – which comprise around $65m of the total award to Carrol. These “send a message” to the president, according to Tobias, to avoid further defamation.
While Tobias wasn’t surprised – characterizing Judge Lewis Kaplan, as a “savvy, experienced jurist who has resolved many high-profile cases” – he fully expects the Trump administration to challenge the decision and attempt to appeal to the supreme court.
