A federal appeals court has just affirmed one of the largest defamation awards in recent history – an $83.3 million verdict against a sitting U.S. President.
The ruling in the E. Jean Carroll case is a major legal blow to President Donald Trump. But more than that, it is a powerful judicial statement on a profound constitutional question: Is a president shielded from the legal consequences of his words, even when a jury has found them to be false and defamatory?
The court’s answer on Monday was a resounding “no.”
At a Glance: The Carroll Verdict Upheld
- What’s Happening: A federal appeals court has upheld the $83.3 million verdict against President Trump for defaming writer E. Jean Carroll in 2019.
- The Court’s Reasoning: The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found the award “reasonable” given Trump’s repeated and “egregious” attacks on Carroll, even after a previous jury verdict against him.
- The Immunity Claim: The court also rejected Trump’s argument that he should have presidential immunity because he made the statements while in office.
- The Constitutional Issue: A major test of the limits of presidential immunity, pitting the President’s claims of official action against the long-standing principle that no one is above the law for their personal conduct.
A ‘Reasonable’ Verdict for ‘Egregious’ Conduct
In its decision, the three-judge panel of the 2nd Circuit found that the massive jury award was justified.
The court specifically pointed to President Trump’s “extraordinary and unprecedented conduct” in continuing to publicly attack Carroll after a first jury had already found him liable for sexual abuse and defamation.
“He made three of these attacks within 48 hours of the verdict in Carroll… and launched similar attacks against Carroll in the days and weeks leading up to this trial,” the panel wrote.
The judges concluded that given this pattern of behavior, the large punitive damages were a reasonable way for the jury to punish and deter the President’s conduct.
The Constitutional Firewall: The Limits of Presidential Immunity
The most significant part of the ruling was its rejection of the President’s claim of presidential immunity.
Trump’s lawyers have long argued that because he made the defamatory statements in 2019 while he was president, they were part of his official duties, and he should therefore be immune from a civil lawsuit.
The appeals court disagreed, siding with a bedrock constitutional principle established by the Supreme Court in the 1997 case Clinton v. Jones. In that unanimous decision, the high court ruled that a sitting president is not immune from civil lawsuits related to their personal, unofficial conduct.
“The court’s rejection of immunity rests on a bedrock constitutional principle, affirmed by the Supreme Court in Clinton v. Jones: the presidency is a public office, not a personal shield from the rule of law.”
The court found that Trump’s comments about Carroll were not related to his official duties and therefore were not protected by immunity.
A Tale of Two Trials
To understand this case, it is crucial to distinguish between the two separate trials that have taken place.
The First Trial (May 2023): This jury found Trump liable for sexually abusing Carroll in the mid-1990s and for defaming her with statements he made after his presidency. That jury awarded Carroll $5 million.
The Second Trial (January 2024): This is the case that was upheld on Monday. It was for defamation only, based on the original statements Trump made while he was president in 2019. Because the first jury had already established the underlying facts, this jury was tasked only with determining the damages. They awarded $83.3 million.
The Final Appeal
The President’s legal team has blasted the ruling as a “Witch Hunt” and a “Democrat-funded travesty.” They are still pursuing a separate legal argument that the Department of Justice should be forced to take over the President’s defense.
The final stop for this case is now the Supreme Court.
While Monday’s ruling is another major victory for E. Jean Carroll, the long legal saga is not officially over until the high court either refuses to hear the case or issues its own ruling. This legal battle continues to test the boundaries between presidential power, personal accountability, and the rule of law.