2nd U.S. Circuit Court Rejects Trump En Banc Review in E. Jean Carroll Defamation Case

A divided federal appeals court refused a full rehearing of Donald Trump’s appeal in the E. Jean Carroll defamation case, a decision that opens the path to the U.S. Supreme Court review.

“Carroll was awarded $83 million in damages for her defamation claims”

ABC7 Chicago

The decision raised the likelihood of Supreme Court review as the E. Jean Carroll dispute continues after the Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling on presidential immunity.

ABC7 Chicago

The Reuters account says the divided federal appeals court said that its en banc panel will not review President Donald Trump’s appeal of the jury’s verdict awarding $83 million for defamation to columnist E. Jean Carroll.

The Orlando Sentinel and ABC7 Chicago accounts similarly describe the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejecting a rare meeting of its active judges, with the Orlando Sentinel noting the decision came Wednesday.

In the Courthouse News account, U.S. Circuit Judge Denny Chin wrote for the majority that “The fact of the matter is that no other defendant would be permitted to move to substitute the United States in his place, fifteen months after trial and the entry of judgment against him,” and that “The court appropriately declined to convene en banc to revisit this issue.”

The Courthouse News account also states that the majority concluded the court had correctly held that presidential immunity is waivable and that Trump had waived it in the Carroll case.

The appeals court’s refusal to rehear the $83 million defamation verdict came after a long procedural timeline involving two civil lawsuits between E. Jean Carroll and Donald Trump.

Reuters says the en banc decision was a step in a long-running dispute that has been going on for almost six years and has led to two civil lawsuits, one of which Trump testified in court.

Courthouse News

Reuters further states that the jury awarded Carroll $83 million in damages, and that in 2023 another jury found Trump liable for sexual assault and defamation regarding Carroll for an alleged assault in the mid-1990s at a New York City mall, awarding $5 million in damages.

The Orlando Sentinel account adds that after a three-judge 2nd Circuit panel rejected Trump’s appeal of the $83 million verdict in September, an appeals judge asked the other Manhattan appeals jurists to hear the case.

ABC7 Chicago says the jury awarded Carroll $83 million in damages in 2024 after she successfully argued that Trump defamed her with comments he made disputing her claim he sexually abused her in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room in the 1990s.

In the Reuters account, Trump asked the Supreme Court to review his appeal of the $5 million ruling, but the court has not yet ruled, and the current case involved Trump’s argument that the Department of Justice should have been named as a defendant because his statements were made in his official duties as president.

E. Jean Carroll’s attorney Roberta Kaplan and Trump’s representatives both reacted to the appeals court’s decision, with Kaplan emphasizing closure and Trump’s camp framing the litigation as misuse of the judicial system.

“You Browser Working London Working www”

Koran Manado

Reuters reports that Roberta Kaplan, Carroll’s attorney, issued a statement: “E. Jean Carroll seeks to bring this case, filed in 2019, to a close so that justice can finally be served.”

ABC7 Chicago quotes Kaplan saying, “E. Jean Carroll is eager for this case, originally filed in 2019, to be over so that she can finally obtain justice,” and it also says Kaplan described the denial of the en banc hearing in response to Wednesday’s ruling.

The Orlando Sentinel account similarly says Carroll’s attorney, Roberta Kaplan, said in a statement that her client was “eager for this case, originally filed in 2019, to be over so that she can finally obtain justice.”

On the other side, Reuters includes a quoted defense statement attributed to CNN in which it says: “The American people support President Trump in demanding an immediate end to the illegal, radical use of our judicial system as a weapon and the swift reversal of all so-called ‘witch hunts,’ including the unlawful, Democracy-funded Carroll Hoax ruling – a defense that the Attorney General deemed legally necessary to hand over to the Department of Justice because Carroll based her false statements on the President’s official actions.”

Le Monde with AFP reports that Trump’s spokesman Steven Cheung thundered: “exigent l’arrêt immédiat de l’instrumentalisation du système judiciaire et l’abandon rapide de toutes les chasses aux sorcières, dont le canular Carroll financé par les démocrates,” and it says Cheung promised a second “appel.”

The same en banc denial was framed differently across outlets, particularly in how they emphasized the legal reasoning, the procedural posture, and the broader political implications.

Reuters foregrounded the likelihood of Supreme Court review and tied the next step to presidential immunity arguments after the Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling, stating that the decision raises the likelihood of Supreme Court review and that it opens the door for Trump to seek the U.S. Supreme Court’s review.

Ukraine news

Orlando Sentinel and ABC7 Chicago both focused on the appeals court’s refusal to grant en banc rehearing and on the timing of the arguments, with ABC7 Chicago quoting Judge Denny Chin that “The fact of the matter is that no other defendant would be permitted to move to substitute the United States in his place, fifteen months after trial and the entry of judgment against him,” and stating that the 2nd Circuit said both arguments were raised too late.

Courthouse News similarly centered the majority’s waiver and timing logic, quoting Chin and describing the majority’s conclusion that presidential immunity is waivable and that Trump waived it in the Carroll case.

By contrast, Le Monde with AFP emphasized the civil liability and the presidential transition, stating that the elected American president, Donald Trump, who will be inaugurated on January 20, will have to pay 5 million dollars, and it described the dropping of federal criminal proceedings while civil liability remained.

Le Monde also framed the Trump camp’s response as a broader claim about “l’instrumentalisation du système judiciaire” and “les chasses aux sorcières,” while Reuters presented a quoted defense statement about “witch hunts” and “Carroll Hoax.”

The sources describe the immediate consequence of the en banc denial as leaving the Supreme Court as the next potential venue, while also keeping the civil judgments in place.

“The elected American president, Donald Trump, who will be inaugurated on January 20, will have to pay 5 million dollars (4”

Le Monde.fr

Reuters explicitly says the decision opens the door for Trump to seek the U.S. Supreme Court’s review to consider his arguments on presidential immunity after the Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling.

ABC7 Chicago

It also notes that the implications suggest the case could go to the U.S. Supreme Court, where a final ruling could materially affect presidential immunity and future defamation lawsuits.

Orlando Sentinel states that the high court has not yet decided whether to hear the case, and it ties the en banc denial to months after Trump appealed to the Supreme Court another jury’s decision to grant $5 million.

Courthouse News adds that the dissent argued for en banc rehearing and described a circuit split with the D.C. Circuit’s decision in Wasserman v. Rodacker, while also quoting Menashi’s claim that Trump had not waived presidential immunity against Carroll’s civil claims.

The Le Monde account ties the legal stakes to the presidential transition by stating that Trump will be inaugurated on January 20 and that he remains civilly liable for hundreds of millions of dollars in at least three affairs, including the Carroll cases and the Trump Organization case.