Supreme Court battle intensifies over $83m verdict against Trump
Attorneys for E Jean Carroll argue the justices should not intervene to save the president from the results of his own legal strategy.
By Tyler Khalil ·
E Jean Carroll’s legal team filed a formal opposition on October 30, challenging Donald Trump’s final attempt to have the US Supreme Court dismiss an $83 million damages verdict against him. The filing marks the latest stage in a long-running legal dispute over the journalist’s claims of sexual abuse and defamation.
Carroll’s attorneys, led by Roberta Kaplan, told the justices that the court does not need to "bail out this president from the consequences of his repeated litigation choices." They emphasized that the lower courts have repeatedly upheld the verdict, weakening the argument for a higher court review.
The $83 million award was handed down by a jury on January 26, 2024. This sum came less than a year after Carroll won a separate $5 million judgment in the same case. Trump has consistently denied any wrongdoing related to the allegations made by Carroll.
Trump’s lawyers argue that presidential immunity shields him from liability for conduct during his time in office, specifically referencing 2019 statements where he called Carroll a liar. They contend that the sitting president faces nearly $100 million in personal liability for acts within his federal role, a burden they say "alone deserves this court’s attention."
The defense team stated that reviewing the verdict would protect the institution of the Presidency rather than just the individual. They warned that the "specter of personal liability for official conduct" could chill the exercise of executive power by future leaders.
Carroll’s side countered that the president’s defamatory remarks had a "domino effect," leading to continuous attacks on social media and in emails. These attacks included threats of sexual violence, physical harm, and death. They noted that Carroll litigated the case for seven years, surviving five appeals, eight stay motions, and six days of trial.
The case originated from Carroll’s claim that Trump attacked her in a dressing room at a Tony Manhattan department store decades ago. Her account first appeared in a June 2019 New York magazine article, which was an excerpt from her book, What Do We Need Men For? A Modest Proposal. In September, Trump agreed to stop fighting the initial jury verdict after the Supreme Court rejected his previous appeal request. A spokesman for Trump’s team called the case a "Witch Hunt" and a "Democrat-funded travesty" in response to the new filing.
