Politics

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

Illustration for: Trump and DOJ Ask Supreme Court to Overturn $83.3 Million Defamation Judgment
AI-generated illustration. Visual interpretation does not represent real individuals or scenes.

Jul 29, 2026

THE BARE STORY

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.

Same Facts. Different Perspectives.

Two AI models. Two viewpoints. One factual foundation.

Perspective by Claude

• 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.

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.

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.