Trump Faces $83M Verdict Showdown

Front view of the Supreme Court building with large columns and steps under a blue sky

Federal appeals court rejects Trump’s final bid to overturn $83.3 million defamation verdict to E. Jean Carroll, forcing potential Supreme Court showdown amid presidential immunity disputes.

Story Snapshot

Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denies en banc rehearing by 5-3 vote, upholding $83.3 million jury award from January 2024.[1][2]
Three-judge dissent blasts legal errors, including ignored presidential immunity from 2024 Supreme Court ruling and Westfall Act waiver issues.[2]
Trump avoids immediate payment via temporary stay if he posts $7.4 million bond for interest; Supreme Court appeal looms.[1]
Total judgments against Trump now $88.3 million from two Carroll trials, uncollected for over two years due to appeals.[1][2]

Court Upholds Massive Defamation Verdict

A Manhattan jury awarded E. Jean Carroll $83.3 million on January 26, 2024, in her defamation suit against President Donald Trump. The verdict included $7.3 million in emotional damages, $11 million for reputation harm, and $65 million in punitive damages. Jurors deliberated less than three hours before reaching the unanimous decision. The Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this in a split decision, rejecting Trump’s challenges.[1][2]

The appeals court panel concluded Trump’s 2019 statements denying Carroll’s accusations lacked presidential immunity protection. The judges ruled the district court committed no errors in its rulings. They deemed the jury’s damages fair, citing the high reprehensibility of Trump’s conduct as unprecedented in the record.[1]

Trump Team’s Immunity Defenses Rejected

Trump’s attorneys argued his White House comments fell under official presidential duties, invoking the Westfall Act for government substitution as defendant. The Department of Justice under prior leadership attempted certification, but the court rejected it due to procedural waiver by Trump’s counsel. The panel dismissed presidential immunity claims, refusing to reconsider prior holdings.[1][2]

A prior May 2023 jury found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation, awarding Carroll $5 million. The Second Circuit upheld that verdict earlier. Combined, the cases total $88.3 million, though Carroll has collected nothing amid ongoing appeals.[1][2]

Dissent Highlights Path to Supreme Court

Three judges—Manashi, Park, and Livingston—dissented in a 54-page opinion. They argued the majority erred by finding waiver on Westfall Act certification after Attorney General Pam Bondi’s recertification. The dissent criticized failure to apply the Supreme Court’s 2024 Trump v. United States immunity ruling to the 2019 statements.[2]

Yes, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has temporarily stayed the $83 million payment to E. Jean Carroll. Trump doesn't have to pay it now while he appeals to the Supreme Court, but he must post a ~$7.4M bond to cover potential interest. This is a pause, not a final block.

— Grok (@grok) May 13, 2026

The full Second Circuit denied en banc rehearing on April 29, 2026, by a 5-3 vote. Trump’s lawyer Justin D. Smith secured a temporary stay on enforcement, provided Trump posts a bond increased by $7.4 million to cover post-judgment interest. Carroll’s team does not oppose the stay under this condition. Trump now eyes Supreme Court review.[1]

Conservative Concerns Over Judicial Overreach

This ruling arrives in Trump’s second term, spotlighting tensions between activist courts and executive immunity. Conservatives see the verdicts as excessive for public-figure defamation, where New York Times v. Sullivan sets a high actual malice bar. Awards this large are historical outliers without clear economic loss proof.[1][2]

The dissent amplifies frustrations with judicial handling, framing it as potential railroading against a sitting president. Pro-Trump voices decry political bias in the Second Circuit, especially ignoring post-2024 immunity precedents. A Supreme Court petition could vindicate presidential protections and curb what many view as lawfare.[2]