President Donald Trump has petitioned the Supreme Court to overturn an $83.3 million jury verdict awarded to writer E. Jean Carroll, who accused him of sexually assaulting her in the mid-1990s and alleged he subsequently defamed her. The case centers on statements Trump made during his first term as president, which his legal team argues are protected by presidential immunity.
Carroll first publicly accused Trump of sexual assault in a 2019 memoir, describing an incident that took place in a Manhattan department store dressing room. Trump has repeatedly denied the allegation, asserting that the accusation was fabricated to boost book sales. Carroll filed a defamation suit months after going public, contending that Trump’s disparaging comments—calling her a liar and denying ever having met her—damaged her reputation.
Following two civil trials, a Manhattan jury awarded Carroll $83.3 million in damages in 2024, including $65 million in punitive damages and $18.3 million in compensatory damages. The jury found that Trump acted with malice in his public attacks on Carroll, which included social media posts and comments during news conferences. In a separate 2023 trial, another jury ordered Trump to pay $5 million after finding him liable for sexual abuse and defamation in relation to Carroll’s claims. Appeals courts have upheld both verdicts.
Trump’s legal team is now asking the Supreme Court to reverse the larger $83.3 million verdict on the grounds that his statements were made as official presidential communications and therefore shielded by immunity under a 2024 Supreme Court ruling granting presidents broad protection from criminal prosecution and civil liability for actions within the scope of their official duties. The filing argues that allowing such a ruling to stand would set a precedent threatening to subject sitting presidents to significant personal liability, potentially impairing presidential functions.
Separately, the U.S. Department of Justice has filed a petition seeking to substitute the federal government as the defendant in the case, citing the Westfall Act, which provides federal employees immunity from civil lawsuits for acts performed within the scope of their employment. If successful, this move could nullify the damages award, as the government cannot be sued for defamation. Lower courts have previously rejected similar requests.
The appeals court that upheld the $83.3 million judgment described Trump’s conduct as “extraordinary and egregious,” noting that his damaging statements had led to threats against Carroll and that punitive damages were warranted to deter further defamatory remarks. The court emphasized the findings of the separate sexual abuse verdict as a foundational fact in its decision.
The Supreme Court had earlier declined to hear Trump’s appeal of the $5 million judgment in June but has not yet ruled on the current petition regarding the $83.3 million award. The justices typically consider such petitions in their fall term, and it remains uncertain whether they will choose to intervene. Carroll’s legal team has declined to comment on the latest appeals process.
Trump continues to maintain his innocence and has characterized the lawsuits as politically motivated attempts to tarnish his reputation. Meanwhile, legal analysts observe that the case raises significant questions about the extent of presidential immunity and the limits of accountability for actions taken while in office.