E Jean Carroll Fights Trump's Push to Dismiss $83m Verdict

Legal representatives for author and journalist E Jean Carroll have formally opposed Donald Trump's latest attempt to overturn an $83m damages verdict delivered by a federal jury. Filing their response in the US supreme court, Carroll's team argued that justices do not need to rescue the president from the consequences of his own litigation decisions. Jurors awarded Carroll the substantial financial penalty on January 26, 2024, following an earlier $5m judgment in her sexual abuse and defamation lawsuit against Trump. Throughout the legal proceedings, the former president has continuously denied all allegations of wrongdoing.

Carroll's legal counsel, led by attorney Roberta Kaplan, submitted their opposition on October 30. Trump's lawyers previously petitioned the supreme court to review the case, arguing that presidential immunity shields him from personal liability for actions taken during his term in office, including statements made in 2019 that labeled Carroll a liar. His defense team asserted that allowing the verdict to stand would impose a severe financial burden capable of chilling the execution of executive power for future presidents, thereby threatening the institution of the presidency itself.

Conversely, Carroll's legal team emphasized that lower courts have repeatedly upheld the verdict from the second trial, which focused strictly on damages after the initial jury determined Trump had indeed defamed and sexually abused her. They highlighted the extensive history of the litigation, noting that Carroll has faced numerous appeals, stay motions, and intense public hostility, including thousands of online threats following the politician's defamatory remarks. A spokesperson for Trump's legal team responded by maintaining that supporters stand firmly with the former president against what they termed politically motivated proceedings.

E Jean Carroll's lawyers urge the supreme court to reject Trump's appeal against an $83m damages verdict.

Why it matters

This ongoing legal battle highlights the complex boundaries between personal accountability and presidential immunity regarding statements made while holding public office. The supreme court's handling of the petition could establish significant legal precedents regarding the financial liabilities of former presidents for conduct during their administration.