Legal Filing Confirms Direct Involvement
Sullivan & Cromwell co-chair Robert Giuffra has officially entered his name as counsel of record in a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking to overturn an $83.3 million defamation verdict against President Donald Trump. The filing, submitted Tuesday, marks a definitive step in the firm’s involvement in the E. Jean Carroll litigation, a move that has reportedly sparked internal debate within the prominent Wall Street institution.
Giuffra is joined on the petition by associate Maxwell F. Gottschall and Michael Martinich-Sauter of the James Otis Law Group. This development clarifies the extent of the firm’s engagement, which had previously been the subject of speculation and internal partner discussions regarding whether the firm would maintain a distance from the more controversial aspects of the case.
The Core Legal Argument
The appeal centers on the 2024 Supreme Court ruling that established broad presidential immunity for official acts. Giuffra’s petition argues that President Trump’s statements regarding Carroll—made while he was in the White House and responding to press questions about his fitness for office—constitute official conduct protected by this immunity.
The petition challenges the decision of the federal appeals court, which refused to overturn the $83.3 million award. The lower court had previously determined that Trump waived his immunity defense by failing to raise it in a timely manner. The new filing contends that presidential immunity is a structural protection essential to the functioning of the U.S. government and, therefore, cannot be forfeited through procedural omissions.
Internal Firm Dynamics
The decision to represent President Trump in this specific matter has been a point of contention within Sullivan & Cromwell. According to internal communications viewed by Bloomberg Law, co-chairs Robert Giuffra and Scott Miller informed partners on May 23 that a consensus had been reached by the firm’s managing partners committee to proceed with the representation. The firm acknowledged at the time that some partners held reservations about the case.
The firm has consistently stated that its involvement would be limited to drafting the Supreme Court petition and arguing the case should the court grant a writ of certiorari. Despite these efforts to frame the work as a narrow, high-level legal engagement, the presence of Giuffra’s signature on the filing has drawn renewed public and professional scrutiny.