Federal Appeals Court Rejects Trump’s Appeal Of E. Jean Carroll’s $83 Million Verdict

A divided federal appeals court in New York refused to rehear President Donald Trump’s appeal of E. Jean Carroll’s $83 million jury award, setting up the next step in Trump’s litigation.

“A significant legal victory for journalist E”

- Rezo Nòdwès

CNN reports that a split federal appeals court said its full bench would not rehear Trump’s appeal of the $83 million jury award for defaming magazine columnist E Jean Carroll, and that the decision “paves the way for Trump to ask the US Supreme Court to hear his arguments involving presidential immunity.”

- Rezo Nòdwès

The BBC likewise said the appeals court rejected Trump’s request to rehear his challenges to Carroll’s successful defamation claims, with the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denying the petition in a decision reached on Wednesday.

The Batesville Daily Guard, citing an Associated Press dateline, described the ruling as the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision to reject a rare “en banc” hearing, with “five judges voted against a rehearing before all the judges while three judges voted in favor of the en banc.”

In the CNN account, the majority denied Trump’s motion “en banc” or by the full bench of judges, and the decision was framed as part of a “six -year legal battle between Carroll and Trump.”

The Courthouse News account added that the Second Circuit denied Trump’s petitions for en banc review of his defeated claims of presidential immunity in the civil rape and defamation case won by Carroll.

Across the reporting, the court’s refusal to rehear means Trump’s path runs through further appellate review rather than a full-bench reconsideration in the Second Circuit.

The appeals court’s refusal to rehear turned on procedural timing and on whether Trump could raise certain defenses late in the litigation.

ABC News reported that the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said both Trump’s arguments were “raised too late,” including his attempt “to substitute the United States as a defendant and to raise a claim of presidential immunity.”

ABC News

In ABC’s account, Judge Denny Chin wrote, “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 the court “appropriately declined to convene en banc to revisit this issue.”

Courthouse News similarly quoted Chin for the majority, stating, “The fact of the matter is that no other defendant would be permitted to move to substitute the United States in his place, 15 months after trial and the entry of judgment against him,” and that “The court appropriately declined to convene en bancto revisit this issue.”

Courthouse News further described the majority’s conclusion that “presidential immunity is waivable” and that Trump had waived it in the Carroll case, adding that “If any other litigant had failed to raise an affirmative defense in this way, there would be no question as to whether he waived his right to assert it.”

CNN reported that in the current case Trump argued the Justice Department should have been substituted for him as a defendant because he made the statements within the scope of his duties as president in response to questions by reporters.

The Batesville Daily Guard added that Chin said it was the “fourth time the 2nd Circuit had denied a request for all judges to hear an appeal in the case,” underscoring that the court had repeatedly declined to convene the full bench.

While the appeals court declined en banc review, Carroll’s side emphasized that she wanted the case to end and obtain justice.

“Trump ordered to pay more than US$83 million to writer E”

BBC

ABC News quoted Carroll’s attorney, Roberta Kaplan, saying, “We are pleased that the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has denied President Trump's petition for an en banc hearing in connection with the verdict from the second jury trial.”

ABC also included Kaplan’s statement that “E. Jean Carroll is eager for this case, originally filed in 2019, to be over so that she can finally obtain justice.”

CNN reported that Roberta Kaplan issued a statement saying the same thing, “E. Jean Carroll is eager for this case, originally filed in 2019, to be over so that she can finally obtain justice.”

On the other side, CNN quoted a spokesman for Trump’s legal team arguing that the case reflected “the unlawful, radical weaponization of our justice system” and demanding an “immediate end” to what the spokesman called “Witch Hunts.”

The BBC’s earlier trial reporting included Trump’s reaction to the verdict, quoting him on Truth Social as saying, “Absolutely ridiculous,” and also writing, “I am completely in disagreement with both verdicts and I will appeal this entire witch hunt led by Biden and aimed at me and the Republican Party.”

The Le Monde report likewise quoted Trump’s Truth Social reaction as “Absolutely ridiculous! I completely disagree and I will appeal this entire witch hunt led by Biden and centered on me and the Republican Party.”

The en banc denial was accompanied by disagreement among judges, with dissenting opinions arguing the court should have reheard the case.

CNN reported that three judges disagreed with the majority and said they would have reheard the case, describing their position as a 54-page dissenting opinion.

CNN

CNN quoted the dissent’s framing that “Whatever one thinks about the merits of Trump v. United States, everyone agrees that it represents a significant legal development,” and that the dissenters would rehear the case “en banc to bring our case law about the scope of presidential duties and immunity into conformity with decisions of the Supreme Court.”

CNN also quoted the dissenters’ argument that they would resolve “these questions of exceptional importance in line with the constitutional separation of powers and normal judicial practice.”

At the same time, CNN included a response from Denny Chin and from senior circuit judge Denny Chin’s writing, and it also quoted Denny Chin’s view that the dissent went further than the petitions, with Denny Chin writing, “The dissent goes further than either of the filed petitions, challenging rulings in our decisions, as well as prior decisions of this Court, that neither Trump nor the Government contests in their petitions for rehearing.”

Courthouse News described the dissent as being written by Trump-appointed U.S. Circuit Judge Steven Menashi, who supported granting both petitions for en banc rehearing because “both decisions were erroneous.”

The Batesville Daily Guard identified the dissenting judges as Steven J. Menashi, Michael H. Park and Debra Ann Livingston, and it said they agreed the appeals panel should have let the United States be substituted after the attorney general certified Trump was acting in the “scope of his office or employment.”

The denial of en banc review keeps the $83 million defamation award in place while leaving open the possibility of further Supreme Court involvement.

“MANHATTAN (CN) — The Second Circuit on Wednesday denied President Donald Trump’s petitions for en banc review of his defeated claims of presidential immunity in the civil rape and defamation case won by writer E”

Courthouse News

CNN said the decision “paves the way for Trump to ask the US Supreme Court to hear his arguments involving presidential immunity following the high court’s landmark 2024 decision.”

Courthouse News

The Batesville Daily Guard similarly said the high court has not yet decided whether to hear the case, describing that the en banc denial came “several months after Trump appealed to the Supreme Court another jury’s decision” awarding $5 million.

In the CNN account, Trump had asked the Supreme Court to hear his challenge to the $5 million judgment, but “the court has not yet decided,” and it described how Trump argued that the Justice Department should have been substituted and that presidential immunity should apply.

ABC News, focusing on the Wednesday ruling, reported that the appeals court rejected Trump’s request to rehear his challenges to Carroll’s successful defamation claims, and it included Kaplan’s statement that she was pleased with the denial of the en banc hearing.

The BBC’s account of the earlier defamation verdict described the jury’s damages breakdown, including that the jury ordered Trump to pay a total of US$83.3 million in compensatory and punitive damages, and it quoted Trump’s Truth Social post calling the decision “THIS IS NOT THE USA!”

With the Second Circuit refusing en banc review, the dispute’s future therefore centers on whether the Supreme Court will take up Trump’s presidential immunity arguments and whether any further review changes the damages outcome.