NEW YORK — A federal appeals court has upheld a jury’s decision requiring former President Donald Trump to pay E. Jean Carroll $83.3 million for defamation. This ruling stems from Trump’s repeated social media attacks and public statements following Carroll’s allegations of sexual assault against him.
On Monday, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Trump’s appeal against the jury’s findings, describing the damage rewards as “fair and reasonable.” The court, emphasizing the severity of Carol’s experience, noted that she faced numerous death threats, which supported the trial judge’s conclusion regarding the highly reprehensible nature of Trump’s behavior.
Trump contested the awarded damages, characterizing the amount as extraordinarily excessive, particularly the punitive damages totaling $65 million. He also sought a new trial, referencing a Supreme Court ruling that expanded presidential immunity. However, the appellate court strongly refuted his claims, stating that Trump’s unprecedented attacks on Carroll justified the significant award considering the “unique and egregious facts” surrounding the case.
The record indicates Trump’s public denigrations of Carroll, who is now 81, were reckless and showed a deliberate disregard for her well-being. His statements labeled Carroll a politically driven liar and suggested she lacked the attractiveness that would make her a target for assault, claiming she would “pay dearly” for speaking out.
In response to the ruling, Trump’s legal team decried the judgment as a politically motivated attack on him and insisted that all related cases, especially concerning Carroll, should be dismissed swiftly. Legal representatives noted plans for the case to potentially reach the Supreme Court.
Carroll’s attorney, Roberta Kaplan, welcomed the appeals court’s decision, stating it confirmed Carroll’s truthfulness while indicating that Trump’s narratives were false. Kaplan also pointed out the impact of the threats her client received and expressed optimism for concluding the appellate proceedings.
The court’s ruling primarily involved a second defamation award arising from Trump’s ongoing disparagement of Carroll, which commenced after she accused him of assaulting her decades earlier, as detailed in her 2019 memoir. Carroll recounted an incident from 1996 at a Manhattan department store, describing how a casual interaction escalated to a violent confrontation in a dressing room.
During a previous trial, a jury ruled that Trump was liable for sexual abuse but did not find him guilty of rape under New York law. Trump has persistently denied any wrongdoing, labeling Carroll’s account as fabricated to promote her book and dismissing her as “not my type.”
The initial jury awarded Carroll $5 million for the attack and related comments made by Trump after his presidency ended. Subsequently, a second trial focused solely on determining damages specifically related to Trump’s defamation during and after his time in office.
Trump, who chose not to attend the first trial, was present for the second, which coincided with his campaign for the 2024 presidential election. He characterized the lawsuit as part of a concerted effort to undermine his potential political resurgence.
His legal team raised concerns that the trial judge unreasonably restricted their ability to present a defense during the damages trial, stating that Trump’s innocence should have been a topic of discussion. The appeals court upheld the original trial judge’s decisions, maintaining that all rulings were appropriate given the extraordinary nature of the case.
The 2nd Circuit noted that Trump’s remarks against Carroll escalated both in frequency and intensity over a period of five years, including statements made during the trial itself, in which he defiantly claimed he would continue to defame Carroll.
This ruling marks a significant chapter in a prolonged legal battle that underscores the complexities of defamation and the accountability of public figures when engaging in character assaults. As the case progresses, it remains poised to draw attention from the highest levels of the judiciary.
This article was automatically generated by OpenAI. All individuals, facts, circumstances, and narratives may not be accurate, and any article can be requested for removal, retraction, or correction by contacting contact@publiclawlibrary.org.