Trump and DOJ Ask Supreme Court to Overturn $83.3 Million Defamation Judgment

2026-07-29

The BareStory

Donald Trump and the Department of Justice have filed separate petitions asking the Supreme Court to overturn an $83.3 million civil defamation judgment awarded to writer E. Jean Carroll. The judgment stems from a January 2024 jury verdict that found Trump liable for defaming Carroll in 2019, when he was serving as president, by denying her allegations that he had sexually assaulted her in the 1990s.

In the filings, Trump’s attorneys argued that presidential immunity shields him from the lawsuit, citing a 2024 Supreme Court decision that protects official public communications. They contended that the appeals court, which previously upheld the judgment, wrongly determined that Trump had forfeited his immunity defense. Meanwhile, the Department of Justice argued that the U.S. government should be substituted as the defendant under the Westfall Act, which protects federal employees from civil defamation claims stemming from their official duties.

Trump's legal team stated in the filing that this is the first time in U.S. history that a court has imposed damages liability on a president for conduct while in office. Carroll’s legal representatives declined to comment on the petitions, pointing instead to the appeals court ruling that upheld the verdict.

The ongoing legal dispute follows a separate civil case in May 2023, where a federal jury found Trump liable for sexually abusing and defaming Carroll, ordering him to pay $5 million. While the Supreme Court recently rejected Trump's appeal of that $5 million verdict and the funds were distributed to Carroll, Trump has launched an effort to have the court reconsider its refusal to hear the appeal.

Left Perspective

Dismantling the Executive Shield
Rejecting Taxpayer-Funded Protection
Preventing Absolute Executive Impunity

Right Perspective

Shielding the Presidential Office
Upholding Established Statutory Safeguards
Averting Disruptive Judicial Precedents

Left Perspective

• Dismantling the Executive Shield The $83.3 million defamation judgment represents a vital mechanism of civil accountability, demonstrating that the presidency cannot be used as a shield to defame and silence vulnerable citizens. In this view, the statements made in 2019 regarding sexual assault allegations from the 1990s constitute purely personal misconduct rather than official state duties. Allowing presidential immunity to erase this verdict would undermine the core democratic principle of equal justice under the law by placing the executive above civil accountability.

• Rejecting Taxpayer-Funded Protection The petition by the Department of Justice to substitute the U.S. government as the defendant under the Westfall Act is a harmful misapplication of legal frameworks meant for routine public service. Utilizing public resources and the weight of the federal government to defend personal defamation claims distorts the purpose of the statute. Protections designed to ensure the smooth operation of government should never be leveraged to absorb the financial liabilities of an individual's personal behavior.

• Preventing Absolute Executive Impunity Expanding the 2024 Supreme Court decision to cover personal defamation risks creating an unaccountable executive branch capable of targeting private citizens with impunity. If the judiciary overturns this historic civil judgment, it establishes a precedent where future presidents can use the platform of their office to destroy reputations without facing legal consequences. This outcome threatens to erode the checks and balances necessary to protect individual civil liberties from state-sanctioned harm.

Right Perspective

• Shielding the Presidential Office Preserving the constitutional separation of powers requires robust protections for official public communications made by a sitting president. The statements delivered in 2019 fall under the scope of presidential immunity recognized by the 2024 Supreme Court decision, which protects official executive functions from external judicial interference. Without this shield, the presidency would be constantly vulnerable to personal civil liability, severely hindering a leader's ability to communicate freely with the public.

• Upholding Established Statutory Safeguards The Department of Justice’s request to invoke the Westfall Act is a necessary defense of institutional continuity and established statutory guidelines. Substituting the U.S. government as the defendant ensures that the office of the presidency remains insulated from personal civil lawsuits arising during a term of service. Adhering to these established legal frameworks is essential for maintaining federal stability and preventing the erosion of protections designed for all federal employees.

• Averting Disruptive Judicial Precedents Imposing millions of dollars in damages liability on a president for conduct while in office is an unprecedented move in U.S. history that threatens the stability of the executive branch. If the $83.3 million judgment is allowed to stand, it establishes a dangerous precedent that weaponizes the civil court system against political leaders. This risk of financial ruin from civil litigation would create a chilling effect on executive decision-making and destabilize the functioning of government.

How it may affect me

As a U.S. reader:

• If the Department of Justice is permitted to substitute the U.S. government as the defendant, public resources and taxpayer funds could be used to absorb the financial liabilities of a president's personal legal dispute.

• A ruling in favor of presidential immunity could permanently limit the ability of private citizens to successfully sue sitting presidents for defamation, reducing legal protections for individual reputations.

• Conversely, keeping the multi-million dollar judgment in place could increase the risk of civil lawsuits against future presidents, which may disrupt government stability and alter how executive officials communicate with the public.

• The Supreme Court's decision could clarify the future application of the Westfall Act, affecting the scope of civil liability protections for all federal employees acting in their official roles.

Trump and DOJ Ask Supreme Court to Overturn $83.3 Million Defamation Judgment

The BareStory

Left Perspective

Right Perspective

How it may affect me

Read the story at