A Manhattan jury’s decision to award $83.3 million to writer E. Jean Carroll for defamation against former President Donald Trump has been upheld by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The case revolves around Trump’s comments made in 2019 regarding Carroll’s allegations of rape, which she claims occurred in a Bergdorf Goodman department store dressing room in the 1990s.
The federal appeals court ruled Monday that Trump’s efforts to seek immunity from Carroll’s lawsuit were without merit. The judges noted that Trump’s statements at a White House press conference, where he claimed he had “never met” Carroll and dismissed her as “not my type,” did not shield him from accountability for defamation.
In its ruling, the appeals court stated, “Trump has failed to identify any grounds that would warrant reconsidering our prior holding on presidential immunity.” The court also affirmed that the damages awarded by the jury were both fair and reasonable. The judges emphasized that the substantial awards were justified, given Trump’s continued disparagement of Carroll during the civil trial.
The jury’s initial verdict in January 2024 included $65 million specifically meant as punishment against Trump for defaming Carroll, alongside $11 million to help her reclaim her reputation and an additional $7.3 million for her pain and suffering. The court highlighted that the jury acted within its rights to impose this financial penalty due to Trump’s recurring attacks on Carroll’s character.
Carroll, now 81 and a former columnist for Elle magazine, had previously accused Trump of sexual assault, resulting in a separate jury awarding her $5 million after finding him liable. Trump’s legal team has characterized both lawsuits as politically motivated, claiming that Carroll was “weaponizing” the justice system and labeling the proceedings as “Witch Hunts.”
As of now, Trump remains liable for the $83.3 million award unless the U.S. Supreme Court chooses to intervene. His attorneys did not immediately disclose plans to appeal the recent ruling. The appeals court’s decision follows its earlier affirmation of the $5 million award from the first trial, with Trump’s legal representatives signaling an intention to contest that verdict at the Supreme Court as well.
Moreover, the judges addressed the larger implications of presidential immunity in their ruling, stating that adhering to it in this instance would not serve the interests of justice, particularly given the severity of the allegations against Trump. The panel indicated that the jury’s findings reflect both the extraordinary nature of the case and the need to prevent further defamatory actions.
The outcomes of these trials underscore the ongoing legal challenges faced by Trump, coming amid a broader examination of his conduct and its ramifications.
The article was automatically written by Open AI and the people, facts, circumstances, and story may be inaccurate. Any article can be requested for removal, retraction, or correction by writing an email to contact@publiclawlibrary.org.