Politics

Appeals Court Denies Trump's Request to Rehear $83.3 Million Defamation Judgment

Illustration for: Appeals Court Denies Trump's Request to Rehear $83.3 Million Defamation Judgment
AI-generated illustration. Visual interpretation does not represent real individuals or scenes.

Apr 30, 2026

THE BARE STORY

On Wednesday, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied Donald Trump's request for a full-court rehearing of an $83.3 million defamation judgment won by writer E. Jean Carroll. A majority of the judges declined to convene an en banc hearing to review the 2024 verdict.

The defamation case centers on statements Trump made in 2019 denying Carroll's claims that he sexually abused her in a New York department store in the 1990s. Trump has repeatedly denied the accusations, stating he only recognizes Carroll from an old photograph taken at a charity event. In his appeal, Trump's legal team attempted to assert presidential immunity and substitute the United States as the defendant. The appeals court determined these arguments were raised too late in the legal process.

Following the appellate decision, Carroll's attorney, Roberta Kaplan, stated that the legal team was pleased with the ruling and eager to see the litigation conclude. During the trial, the jury concluded that Trump's statements caused Carroll to experience severe harassment, death threats, and fear for her physical safety.

The appellate court's decision clears the way for Trump to escalate the $83.3 million case to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is already evaluating a petition from Trump regarding a separate May 2023 verdict between the two parties, in which a jury awarded Carroll $5 million after finding Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation.

Same Facts. Different Perspectives.

Two AI models. Two viewpoints. One factual foundation.

Perspective by Grok

• Preserving Executive Independence Prioritizing institutional continuity, this framework views the rejection of the presidential immunity defense as a concerning erosion of necessary executive protections. Trump's attempt to substitute the United States as the defendant is seen not as an evasion of responsibility, but as a legitimate defense of the office itself, meant to shield the presidency from paralyzing civil litigation over public statements made while governing. Dismissing these core constitutional arguments strictly on the procedural grounds of being raised "too late" is perceived as prioritizing legal technicalities over the functional independence of the executive branch.

• Weaponization of Civil Liability The staggering $83.3 million defamation judgment—compounded by the previous $5 million verdict—is interpreted as a systemic overreach rather than a balanced legal remedy. Emphasizing the rule of law and institutional stability, this perspective questions whether the courts are being leveraged to bankrupt and silence prominent political figures. When a denial of an unproven 1990s allegation triggers tens of millions in damages based on indirect third-party harassment, it signals to traditionalists a dangerous departure from objective standards of civil liability toward politicized retribution.

• Ultimate Constitutional Safeguard The pathway to the U.S. Supreme Court is viewed as the necessary corrective mechanism to restore established legal order and institutional norms. Because the appellate court declined a full-court review of the 2024 verdict, this camp relies on the highest court to definitively clarify the boundaries of presidential immunity regarding both the $5 million and $83.3 million judgments. The overarching priority is securing a binding constitutional precedent that protects future presidents from enduring endless, politically charged litigation long after they have left public office.

How it may affect me

As a U.S. reader:

• In the long term, the expected escalation of this case to the U.S. Supreme Court could establish binding constitutional precedents regarding presidential immunity, which will dictate whether average citizens can hold future presidents civilly liable for public statements made while in office.

• The enforcement of the financial penalty reinforces a legal standard that could affect how civil liability is applied to highly resourced individuals whose use of massive public platforms is linked by juries to indirect third-party harassment and physical threats against private citizens.

• The protracted timeline of the judgments highlights short-term and long-term realities within the civil justice system, demonstrating how strict procedural rules regarding when legal defenses are introduced can impact a citizen's ability to finalize lawsuits against well-funded defendants.

Read the story at

Note: All TheBareNews content is AI-generated. For additional context, reporting, and updates, you are invited to explore the news outlets linked above.