A US federal appeals court has upheld a substantial jury verdict against former President Donald Trump, affirming that he defamed writer E Jean Carroll in 2019. The 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan rejected Trump’s plea to overturn the January 2024 verdict, which awarded Carroll $83.3 million for damaging her reputation when he denied her rape allegation.
The court’s decision follows a series of legal battles between Trump and Carroll, who accused him of assaulting her in a dressing room at Bergdorf Goodman department store in the mid-1990s. Carroll’s claims first emerged publicly in June 2019, when Trump responded to her allegations by stating that she was “not my type” and suggested that she fabricated the story to promote her memoir, What Do We Need Men For?
In a related ruling, the court previously upheld a $5 million jury verdict against Trump in May 2023 for similar defamation and sexual assault claims. Notably, the jury did not find that Trump had raped Carroll, but the verdict included damages for emotional distress and reputational harm.
In his latest appeal, Trump argued that a July 2024 decision by the US Supreme Court granting him significant criminal immunity should also shield him from liability in Carroll’s civil lawsuit. He contended that his statements regarding Carroll were made in his capacity as president, claiming that failing to provide him with immunity could threaten the independence of the Executive Branch.
Additionally, Trump criticized US District Judge Lewis Kaplan, who presided over both trials, alleging that Kaplan made several errors, including preventing him from testifying that his comments about Carroll were intended to “defend myself, my family, and frankly the presidency.”
Carroll, now 81 and a former columnist for Elle magazine, has continued to speak out against Trump. In June 2024, she released another memoir titled Not My Type: One Woman vs. a President, detailing her legal confrontations with him.
This ruling not only reinforces Carroll’s claims but also highlights the complexities surrounding legal accountability for public figures. The outcome of this case may influence future discussions on defamation, presidential immunity, and the rights of individuals to seek justice against powerful figures.
