Trump’s Legal Team Seeks Supreme Court Intervention on Defamation Award
NEW YORK (AP) — Legal efforts by President Donald Trump’s attorney are underway to prevent a columnist from collecting a substantial $83 million defamation award. The appeal, brought forth by lawyer Justin D. Smith, aims to pause the enforcement of a decision by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York. The strategy hinges on an anticipated appeal to the Supreme Court.
In January 2024, a jury in Manhattan granted E. Jean Carroll this significant payout. This followed a prior decision in May 2023, where another jury decided Carroll was entitled to $5 million after determining that Trump sexually abused her in a department store dressing room in 1996 and subsequently defamed her in 2019 following her public recount of the incident.
Trump has consistently refuted allegations of sexual abuse against Carroll and claims to have no acquaintance with her. He has accused her of political motivations and the intent to boost her memoir sales through these claims.
The appeal to the 2nd Circuit includes a stipulation by Carroll’s attorney that the stay will not be contested, provided Trump increases the bond by $7.4 million to accommodate potential interest accrued during a Supreme Court review.
Roberta Kaplan, Carroll’s attorney, opted not to comment on the matter.
Smith emphasized that Trump would face “irreparable harm” should he be required to pay the award immediately, given Carroll’s statement about donating the award, potentially complicating any retrieval of funds if the Supreme Court reverses the verdict.
Smith argued there is a “reasonable probability” that the Supreme Court may consider the appeal, citing Trump’s argument of absolute immunity for statements made during his presidency. This argument was bolstered by a dissenting opinion from three 2nd Circuit judges following a recent decision that declined to have the full appellate court review the case, leaving in place a panel’s September ruling upholding the verdict. Smith expressed confidence in a “fair prospect” of the Supreme Court overturning the decision.
