Trump WINS! Shocking Appeals Court Ruling in E. Jean Carroll Case
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A federal appeals court has ruled that President Donald Trump is not required to pay an $83 million defamation judgment awarded to writer E. Jean Carroll while the case awaits further review by the U.S. Supreme Court. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York issued the order on Monday after Trump’s legal team requested a pause on an earlier appellate decision that had denied him the opportunity to seek rehearing before the full court.
The appeals court granted the stay on the condition that Trump increase the existing bond by $7.46 million to account for accruing interest on the award during the anticipated proceedings. With the adjustment, the total bond now exceeds $91 million. Attorneys for Carroll confirmed there was no objection to the stay provided the bond was increased.
Carroll’s attorney, Roberta Kaplan, stated that the legal team was satisfied with the condition requiring the additional bond. Trump’s attorneys have been pursuing a separate legal strategy that would substitute the U.S. government as the defendant in the defamation lawsuit. If successful, the move could potentially resolve the case because the federal government is generally immune from defamation claims under existing law.
The underlying case stems from a 2024 jury verdict in which Carroll prevailed on claims that Trump defamed her by denying allegations of sexual abuse in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room during the 1990s. Trump has consistently denied the accusations, describing the case as a “complete con job” and stating that Carroll was “not my type.” His legal team has argued that the allegations were politically motivated and lacked corroborating evidence such as physical proof, eyewitness testimony, or contemporaneous police reports. They have also highlighted that Carroll waited more than two decades to make the claims public.
Trump is separately seeking Supreme Court review of a related $5 million judgment in another defamation case brought by Carroll. The Supreme Court is expected to consider petitions involving that matter during its private conference. In filings, Trump’s attorneys described Carroll’s account as “facially implausible” and contended that certain evidentiary rulings during the trial were improper.
The appeals court’s decision to grant the stay provides temporary relief for Trump while higher court proceedings continue. Legal observers note that such stays are not uncommon in high-profile civil cases involving public figures when significant constitutional or procedural questions are raised. The developments reflect ongoing litigation stemming from Carroll’s 2019 book in which she first publicly detailed the allegations against Trump.
The case has drawn national attention as part of broader discussions about defamation law, presidential immunity, and the intersection of politics and civil litigation. Supporters of Trump have described the lawsuits as examples of politically motivated legal actions, while Carroll’s legal team has maintained that the verdicts were based on evidence presented at trial and upheld through the appellate process.
As the matter heads toward potential Supreme Court consideration, both sides continue to prepare arguments on the merits of the underlying claims and the procedural steps taken thus far. The outcome could have implications not only for the parties involved but also for future cases addressing similar issues of defamation and official conduct.
May you like
The ruling comes amid a series of legal challenges facing the Trump administration as it advances its policy agenda. Legal experts anticipate additional filings and potential further appeals as the case progresses through the federal court system. No timeline has been set for Supreme Court action, though the high court typically issues orders on certiorari petitions within weeks of its conferences.
The developments are being closely monitored by legal analysts and political observers as they unfold against the backdrop of ongoing national debates over civil liability, free speech, and the role of the judiciary in high-profile disputes.
