Trump’s Payment Delayed Pending Supreme Court Review
NEW YORK (AP) — Former President Donald Trump has been granted a reprieve from paying an $83 million defamation award to E. Jean Carroll until the U.S. Supreme Court decides whether to hear his appeal. The decision was announced following a recent entry by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The court agreed to a request by Trump’s legal team to postpone the payment, contingent upon Trump posting a $7.4 million bond. This condition was proposed by Carroll’s attorney to cover potential additional interest costs. The delay allows Trump time as the Supreme Court considers the case.
Last month, the appeals court denied Trump’s request for an en banc hearing to review a three-judge panel’s decision from January 2024, which upheld the original verdict in favor of Carroll.
Trump’s attorney, Justin D. Smith, expressed optimism about the Supreme Court’s potential ruling, suggesting there is a “fair prospect” that it might favor Trump. The former president has consistently refuted Carroll’s allegations, dismissing them as a “made up scam” since they were first publicly detailed in 2019. Carroll accused Trump of sexually assaulting her in a Manhattan department store dressing room during the spring of 1996.
The $83 million award was determined by a jury that briefly heard Trump’s testimony and observed his conduct over several days. The 2nd Circuit panel’s September opinion noted that Trump intensified his derogatory remarks against Carroll over a five-year span, particularly as the trial date approached.
During the trial, Trump continued his disparagements. The court record cites an instance early in the trial where Trump vowed to defame Carroll “a thousand times.”
Previously, in May 2023, another jury awarded Carroll $5 million, concluding that Trump had sexually assaulted her and subsequently defamed her following her 2019 memoir publication.
Trump is contesting the $83 million judgment, invoking “absolute immunity” for statements made while serving as president. He contends his remarks were politically motivated and aimed at discrediting Carroll’s intentions, suggesting they were either political in nature or driven by a desire to promote her book.
