Trendpills
Donald Trump has escalated his legal battle with writer E. Jean Carroll, asking the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a jury verdict that found him liable for sexual abuse and defamation. The petition, filed on Monday, targets the May 2023 civil trial outcome where a federal jury in New York awarded Carroll $5 million in damages.
The jury concluded that Trump sexually abused Carroll in a Manhattan department store dressing room in the mid-1990s and later defamed her by denying the incident in a 2022 social media post. Trump’s lawyers are now arguing that he should be protected by presidential immunity for the defamatory statements he made. They contend that his denials were part of his official duties as president, as the allegations questioned his fitness for office. In their filing, his attorneys stated that a president must have absolute immunity for public communications to function without fear of retaliatory lawsuits.
This argument has been consistently rejected by lower courts. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals previously ruled against Trump, stating that presidential immunity does not shield an individual for conduct that is purely private and unrelated to official duties. In its decision, the court emphasized that the underlying dispute originated long before Trump took office, making his subsequent denials part of a personal matter. The Supreme Court has not yet indicated whether it will hear the case.
Carroll’s legal team has characterized Trump’s appeals as meritless delay tactics. This legal challenge is distinct from a separate, second defamation case where a different jury in January ordered Trump to pay Carroll $83.3 million. That case concerned defamatory remarks Trump made in 2019 while he was president.
The current appeal focuses solely on the initial $5 million verdict. Should the Supreme Court decide to take up the case, its ruling could have significant implications for the scope of presidential immunity regarding statements and actions tied to events that occurred before taking office. The core legal question remains whether a president's public denials of personal allegations constitute an official act deserving of legal protection.
