Appeals Court CRUSHES Trump’s $83M Defense

Interior of a courtroom featuring a judges bench and American flag

A federal appeals court has upheld an $83.3 million defamation judgment against President Trump, rejecting his presidential immunity defense and clearing the path for potential Supreme Court review.

Quick Take

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously rejected Trump’s appeal, finding his presidential immunity claim had no legal merit and the jury’s damages award was fair and reasonable.
Trump must now decide whether to accept the verdict or pursue a final appeal to the Supreme Court, with a temporary stay currently blocking payment enforcement.
The case stems from Trump’s public statements denying E. Jean Carroll’s sexual abuse allegations, which a jury found constituted defamation causing Carroll harassment, death threats, and fear for her safety.
This marks the second major appellate defeat for Trump in Carroll-related cases, following an earlier $5 million judgment for sexual abuse and defamation that was also upheld on appeal.

Appeals Court Rejects Presidential Immunity Argument

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a unanimous decision rejecting Trump’s core legal argument that his comments about Carroll qualified for presidential immunity protection [1]. The three-judge panel stated Trump “failed to identify any grounds that would warrant reconsidering” the lower court’s immunity ruling. The court emphasized that Trump’s lawyers raised the immunity defense too late in the appellate process, after the administration changed and new legal strategies emerged [2]. This procedural timing issue proved fatal to his defense strategy.

Two Jury Verdicts Find Trump Liable for Defamation

Carroll has now prevailed in two separate jury trials against Trump. In 2023, a federal jury awarded her $5 million after finding Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation related to alleged conduct in a Bergdorf Goodman department store dressing room in the 1990s [3]. The second jury verdict in January 2024 resulted in the $83.3 million judgment, comprising $7.3 million in emotional damages, $11 million in reputational damages, and $65 million in punitive damages. Both appellate and trial courts found Trump’s post-presidency denials of Carroll’s allegations constituted defamation [1].

Court Finds Trump’s Conduct Remarkably Reprehensible

The appeals court panel stated that the record supported findings of “remarkably high, perhaps unprecedented” reprehensibility in Trump’s conduct [1]. The jury determined that as a result of Trump’s statements, Carroll experienced harassment, humiliation, death threats, and sustained fear for her physical safety. The court rejected arguments that the damages award was excessive, concluding instead that the jury’s decision was proportionate to the harm inflicted and the nature of the defendant’s conduct [3].

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

Path Forward Remains Uncertain for Trump

Trump now faces a critical decision: accept the appellate court’s ruling or petition the Supreme Court for review [2]. A temporary stay currently prevents enforcement of the judgment while legal proceedings continue. Trump’s legal team has signaled willingness to pursue further appeals, arguing the case involves significant constitutional questions about presidential immunity and First Amendment protections. However, the Supreme Court has not yet indicated whether it will accept the case for review [2].

Broader Implications for Presidential Accountability

The appellate court’s decision establishes that sitting presidents cannot use their office to shield themselves from defamation liability for statements made about private citizens. This ruling reinforces the principle that no individual, regardless of position, stands above the law. The court’s rejection of Trump’s Westfall Act argument—which sought to substitute the federal government as defendant—further clarified that personal statements made outside official capacity remain the speaker’s personal responsibility [2].