Federal Appeals Court Denies En Banc Hearing for Trump’s Defamation Verdict Appeal
NEW YORK (AP) — In a recent decision, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals opted against a full court review of a substantial $83 million defamation judgment against former President Donald Trump. This decision arrives amidst ongoing legal disputes concerning Trump’s alleged defamation of E. Jean Carroll, a magazine advice columnist.
Months after Trump escalated the matter to the Supreme Court, the appeals court confirmed its stance, dismissing the request for an “en banc” hearing. The Supreme Court has yet to determine whether it will take up the case. Previously, a jury had awarded Carroll $5 million, concluding that Trump had sexually abused her in a department store dressing room in 1996, followed by defamatory remarks.
While Trump’s legal team has not provided immediate comments, Carroll’s attorney, Roberta Kaplan, expressed her client’s desire for resolution. Kaplan stated that Carroll is “eager for this case, originally filed in 2019, to be over so that she can finally obtain justice.”
In September, a three-judge panel from the 2nd Circuit had dismissed Trump’s appeal against the $83 million verdict, prompting one judge to suggest a full court review. Ultimately, the court decided by a narrow margin, with five judges against and three in favor of the en banc hearing.
Judge Denny Chin highlighted the rarity of the request, noting it as the fourth such denial in this case. He recounted the timeline, beginning with Carroll’s 2019 memoir revelation of the alleged abuse, which Trump countered with public denials and defamatory remarks.
Trump’s absence at the May 2023 trial did not prevent the jury from concluding he had defamed Carroll, resulting in a substantial award. Chin underscored the appeals court’s rationale for maintaining the defamation award, citing Trump’s continued derogatory statements towards Carroll.
Chin wrote, “The record showed that Trump made multiple statements over many years accusing Carroll of lying for political and financial gain, and suggesting that Carroll was too unattractive for Trump to have sexually assaulted her.” He further noted the harassment Carroll faced and Trump’s lack of remorse.
Judges Steven J. Menashi, Michael H. Park, and Debra Ann Livingston dissented, advocating for a full court review. They posited that Trump should have been allowed to argue presidential immunity and that the United States should have been substituted as the defendant, given the attorney general’s certification of Trump’s actions being within the scope of his duties.
The dissenting judges also criticized the defamation award as “grossly excessive,” with Judge Menashi describing the proceedings as a “manifest miscarriage of justice.”
