In a high-stakes legal battle, questions arise over whether presidential immunity can shield Donald Trump from a hefty $83.3 million defamation judgment. The case stems from accusations that Trump defamed E. Jean Carroll, a well-known magazine columnist, and the legal wrangling has now advanced to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Last year, a jury found Trump liable for defaming Carroll, resulting in an award of $83.3 million in damages. Carroll’s attorneys are asking the appellate court to affirm this judgment, opposing Trump’s plea to invalidate the verdict due to his former role as President.
Attorney Roberta Kaplan, representing Carroll, emphasized that dissatisfaction with court outcomes should not equate to immunity from the judicial process. She contended, Dissatisfied with the outcome of the judicial process, Trump now asks this Court to set aside that jury verdict on the theory that he was actually immune from judicial review all along.
The controversy stems from comments made by Trump in 2022 when he dismissed Carroll’s allegations as a hoax and a lie via social media, adding that this woman is not my type! These remarks followed a prior court decision where a jury found Trump liable for sexually abusing Carroll in a dressing room incident during the 1990s, awarding Carroll $5 million.
An appeals court had previously confirmed the $5 million decision, but Trump continues to contest the $83.3 million verdict. His legal team, led by attorney D. John Sauer, argues that the judgment should be nullified due to alleged flawed jury instructions, trial errors, and perceived protections under presidential immunity.
Presidential immunity forecloses any liability here and requires the complete dismissal of all claims, argued Sauer, underscoring the team's stance that Trump's public statements as president cannot be legally challenged.
However, Kaplan counters this assertion, arguing that Trump's remarks about Carroll were not tied to his presidential duties. If there were ever a case where immunity does not shield a President's speech, this one is it, she wrote in her brief. Donald Trump was not speaking here about a governmental policy or a function of his responsibilities as President. He was defaming Carroll because of her revelation that many years before he assumed office, he sexually assaulted her.
The legal drama unfolds against the backdrop of Trump actively participating in the case, attending court most days while publicly denouncing Carroll and sparring with the presiding judge within the courtroom setting. His actions, Kaplan argues, validate the jury’s decision to impose the significant judgment to deter further defamatory conduct.
As the legal battle persists, the court’s upcoming decision may not only impact the stakeholders but also set precedents regarding the extent of presidential immunity in civil litigations. Observers and legal experts await the appellate court’s ruling which could have far-reaching implications for public officials and their accountability in the public arena.