Trump and DOJ Ask Supreme Court to Overturn $83M Verdict

President Donald Trump and the U.S. Department of Justice have jointly asked the Supreme Court to overturn an $83.3 million defamation verdict won by writer E. Jean Carroll, arguing that Trump cannot be sued for statements he made while serving as president. The appeal, filed on July 29, 2026, represents the second time Trump has sought the justices’ intervention in the Carroll cases and could produce a landmark ruling on the scope of presidential accountability. According to AP News, the filing rests on two primary legal arguments: that Trump’s comments were shielded by the Westfall Act and that presidential immunity protects him from civil liability.

The Legal Challenge

The Justice Department is invoking the Westfall Act of 1988, which shields federal employees from being sued personally for actions taken within the scope of their employment. If the Supreme Court agrees, the United States government would replace Trump as the defendant—an outcome that would effectively moot the case, as the federal government cannot be sued for defamation under the Federal Tort Claims Act.

“Absent this Court’s intervention, the sitting President is facing nearly a hundred million dollars of personal liability for conduct that was well within the scope of his federal office,” DOJ attorneys wrote in the filing, as The Guardian reported. “That alone deserves this Court’s attention.”

Trump’s legal team separately argues that presidential immunity shields him from the $83.3 million award, asserting that “this is the first case in our nation’s history in which a court has imposed damages liability on a president for his conduct in office.” They contend that the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan “engaged in procedural contortions” to avoid addressing Trump’s immunity claims and ruled in a manner that “cries out for this Court’s review.”

Background of the Case

The defamation verdict stems from statements Trump made in June 2019 after Carroll publicly accused him of sexual assault in her memoir. Trump denied knowing Carroll, called her allegations a “hoax” and “con job,” and stated “she’s not my type”—comments a Manhattan federal jury found to be defamatory in January 2024, awarding Carroll $83.3 million in damages.

Carroll testified that Trump sexually assaulted her in spring 1996 in a dressing room at Bergdorf Goodman, a luxury department store across from Trump Tower in Manhattan. The allegations, which Trump has consistently denied, have been the subject of two related lawsuits overseen by U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan.

The combined judgments against Trump in the two Carroll cases total $88.3 million. As Wikipedia details, the second lawsuit—Carroll II—was filed under New York’s Adult Survivors Act and produced a $5 million verdict in May 2023 after a jury found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation. The Supreme Court declined to hear Trump’s appeal of that verdict in June 2026, and Carroll subsequently collected $5.6 million, including interest.

The 2nd Circuit upheld the $83.3 million verdict but split over the decision and agreed to delay the payout until the Supreme Court weighs in, setting the stage for the current appeal.

The DOJ’s Shifting Position

A notable feature of the case is the Justice Department’s evolving stance across presidential administrations. During Trump’s first term in 2020, the DOJ argued he was acting in his official capacity when responding to Carroll’s allegations. The Biden administration’s DOJ continued this position through 2021–2022 but reversed course in July 2023 after a jury had already found Trump liable for sexual abuse in Carroll II.

Now, with Trump back in office, the DOJ has reverted to its original position, arguing that Trump’s comments were within the scope of his employment. This reversal raises questions about the politicization of the Justice Department and whether its legal arguments are driven by the merits or by loyalty to the sitting president.

Implications for Presidential Accountability

The appeal arrives approximately two years after the Supreme Court granted Trump broad immunity from criminal prosecution in Trump v. United States (July 2024). That ruling held that presidents have absolute immunity for core constitutional functions and presumptive immunity for other official acts. The Carroll case now tests whether that immunity extends to civil liability for a president’s public statements denying allegations of personal misconduct.

Legal experts suggest the Supreme Court’s decision could have far-reaching consequences. A ruling in Trump’s favor could make it significantly more difficult for individuals to sue presidents for defamation, even when the statements concern purely personal conduct unrelated to official duties. Conversely, upholding the verdict would reinforce the principle that presidents remain accountable for private misconduct, even when they communicate about it from the Oval Office.

What’s Next

The appeal has been filed electronically and is expected to be formally docketed with the Supreme Court. The justices must first decide whether to grant certiorari—to agree to hear the case—a decision that could come in the coming months. If the Court takes up the appeal, oral arguments and a ruling would likely follow in the next term.

Key questions remain: Will the Court address both the Westfall Act and presidential immunity arguments? Could it uphold the verdict but reduce the $83.3 million award as “grossly excessive,” as Trump’s lawyers argue? And how will the justices balance two decades of sexual misconduct allegations against the institutional interests of the presidency?

For now, Carroll’s lawyers have declined to comment on the latest filing. The case, already historic in its trajectory, now stands as one of the most consequential tests of presidential accountability in American jurisprudence.