Quick Read
- A U.S. appeals court upheld an $83.3M defamation judgment against Donald Trump.
- The ruling stems from Trump’s statements about E. Jean Carroll’s sexual assault allegations.
- The court rejected Trump’s arguments about presidential immunity and excessive damages.
- Carroll faced harassment and professional setbacks due to Trump’s public comments.
- The decision sets a precedent for accountability of public figures, including presidents.
In a landmark decision on September 8, 2025, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an $83.3 million defamation judgment against former President Donald Trump. The case centers on claims made by E. Jean Carroll, a former Elle magazine columnist, who accused Trump of sexually assaulting her in the mid-1990s and subsequently defaming her in public statements. The three-judge panel ruled that the damages awarded to Carroll were “fair and reasonable,” and rejected Trump’s legal arguments to overturn the decision.
Background of the Case
In her 2019 memoir, Carroll alleged that Trump sexually assaulted her in a Manhattan department store in the 1990s. She claimed the incident began as a chance encounter but escalated into a violent assault in a dressing room. Trump denied the allegations, calling them a “hoax” and asserting that Carroll was “not my type.” These statements, along with others, led Carroll to file two defamation lawsuits against Trump.
The first case, resolved in 2023, resulted in a $5 million judgment for Carroll after a jury found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation. A second lawsuit focused on Trump’s public statements in 2019 while he was still president. The jury in this case awarded Carroll $83.3 million in damages earlier this year, a sum that includes $18.3 million in compensatory damages and $65 million in punitive damages.
The Appeals Court Decision
Trump’s legal team sought to overturn the $83.3 million judgment, arguing that the damages were excessive and that the Supreme Court’s recent expansion of presidential immunity should apply. However, the appeals court panel, which included Judges Denny Chin, Maria Araújo Kahn, and Sarah A. L. Merriam, dismissed these arguments. They found that Trump’s conduct was “remarkably high” in its degree of reprehensibility, and that the damages were justified given the harm Carroll endured.
Carroll testified during the trial that Trump’s defamatory statements subjected her to relentless online harassment, including hundreds of death threats. She also lost her longstanding career at Elle magazine and suffered reputational damage that left her ostracized from professional circles. According to the court, Trump’s attacks on Carroll were “extraordinary and unprecedented,” and intensified as the trial approached.
Implications for Presidential Immunity
One of the most significant aspects of the ruling was the court’s stance on presidential immunity. Trump’s attorneys argued that his statements about Carroll, made while he was president, should be protected under the doctrine of presidential immunity. However, the appeals court disagreed, stating that defamation does not fall under official presidential duties. This sets a critical precedent, affirming that sitting presidents can be held accountable for personal actions taken during their tenure.
Roberta Kaplan, Carroll’s attorney, welcomed the decision, saying, “The ruling affirms that no one, not even a president, is above the law.” Kaplan also expressed hope that this would mark the end of the appellate process, allowing Carroll to finally receive justice.
Trump’s Response and Ongoing Legal Battles
Trump’s legal team has vowed to continue fighting the judgment, framing the lawsuits as part of what they call “liberal lawfare” aimed at undermining his political ambitions. Trump, who is actively campaigning for the 2024 presidential election, has repeatedly portrayed the lawsuits as politically motivated attacks designed to prevent him from regaining the White House.
Meanwhile, the judgment against Trump has grown to $89.7 million due to New York’s 9% annual interest on such awards. Despite the financial and reputational costs, Trump has shown no signs of backing down, stating during the trial that he would “continue to defame Carroll a thousand times.”
The appeals court’s ruling underscores the growing legal challenges Trump faces as he navigates multiple lawsuits and investigations while pursuing a return to the presidency.
The court’s decision not only reaffirms the verdict in favor of E. Jean Carroll but also sends a clear message about the limits of presidential immunity and the accountability of public figures for their actions.