Trump and DOJ ask Supreme Court to toss $83 million Carroll verdict

President Donald Trump and the Justice Department have petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a $83 million defamation verdict awarded to writer E. Jean Carroll, arguing that the judgment violates principles of presidential immunity and federal employee protections. The appeal, filed electronically and expected to be formally docketed soon, marks the second time Trump has sought to challenge a jury’s ruling against him in the case, which centers on allegations of sexual assault and defamatory remarks.

Carroll, a former advice columnist and TV host, won the 2024 verdict after claiming Trump sexually assaulted her in 1996 and later defamed her by accusing her of fabricating the allegations. The jury awarded her $83 million in damages, citing Trump’s 2019 statements that disavowed knowing her and attacked her motivations for writing a memoir about the encounter. The Justice Department’s filing argues that Trump’s comments during his first presidential term fall under the Westfall Act, which shields federal employees from personal liability for actions taken within their official duties.

“Absent this Court’s intervention, the sitting President is facing nearly a hundred million dollars of personal liability for conduct that was well within the scope of his federal office,” federal attorneys wrote. The appeal also highlights a 2023 $5 million verdict against Trump for sexual abuse and defamation, which the Supreme Court declined to review in June. Trump’s legal team contends that the 2024 case represents an unprecedented expansion of liability for a sitting president, calling the damages “grossly excessive” and asserting that lower courts have “engaged in procedural contortions” to avoid addressing presidential immunity.

Carroll’s lawyers have not commented on the latest filing, but the case has reignited debates over the limits of executive accountability. Trump has long maintained that he cannot be sued for statements made during his presidency, a stance reinforced by the Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling granting former presidents broad immunity from criminal prosecution. The current appeal seeks to extend this principle to civil cases, arguing that the Westfall Act bars personal liability for actions taken in an official capacity.

The legal battle underscores broader tensions over the role of the judiciary in balancing executive power with individual rights. Lower courts have so far rejected Trump’s appeals, with the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upholding the verdict despite a split decision. The Supreme Court’s willingness to take the case remains uncertain, but the administration’s urgency reflects the high stakes for both parties. For Trump, the outcome could determine whether he faces significant financial exposure from a lawsuit that has already cost him $5 million in previous damages.

The case also highlights the evolving legal landscape surrounding presidential immunity. While the Westfall Act typically applies to federal employees, its application to a sitting president has never been tested in the Supreme Court. Trump’s legal team argues that the 2024 verdict sets a dangerous precedent, allowing private citizens to sue the president for speech tied to official duties. Opponents, however, warn that such a ruling would embolden leaders to evade accountability for harmful statements, particularly in cases involving allegations of misconduct.

As the Supreme Court weighs the appeal, the case remains a focal point in the ongoing clash between executive power and legal accountability. For Carroll, the fight for justice has spanned decades, with her 2019 memoir reigniting public scrutiny of Trump’s conduct. For the administration, the appeal represents a strategic effort to limit the financial and legal risks faced by a former president navigating a complex legal landscape. The outcome could shape future disputes over the boundaries of presidential liability and the role of the judiciary in mediating such conflicts.