Carroll urges Supreme Court to reject Trump’s appeal
Carroll’s lawyers asked the Supreme Court to leave in place the damages awarded by a federal jury in January 2024. They argued Trump should not be allowed to invoke presidential immunity after years of contesting the case without raising that defense until December 2022. Lower courts have upheld the verdict, they said.
Trump’s petition says the ruling improperly weakens immunity for presidential conduct in office. His lawyers argue that imposing personal damages for official actions could affect how future presidents use their powers. Carroll’s team countered that Trump’s attacks on her were outside the scope of his presidential duties and that his litigation choices undercut his immunity claim.
The verdict stemmed from Trump’s 2019 denials of Carroll’s account of sexual abuse. A separate jury determined in 2023 that Trump assaulted Carroll in 1996, awarding her $5 million. Trump has denied abusing her or knowing her. He stopped appealing that verdict after the Supreme Court declined to take up his challenge.
Carroll’s lawyers also described threats she received after Trump’s statements. Separately, the Justice Department has asked the court to allow the United States to replace Trump as the defendant. Carroll’s lawyers say a law barring defamation claims against the government would then end the case. The Supreme Court must decide whether to hear Trump’s appeal; Carroll’s filing asks it to refuse.
Supreme Court should reject Trump’s bid to escape Carroll verdict
Carroll’s lawyers say Trump should not be given a fresh route to avoid accountability after years of fighting her case and raising presidential immunity only in December 2022. They urged the justices to reject his appeal, noting that lower courts have upheld the jury’s $83.3 million award.
Trump argues that presidential immunity shields him from personal liability for conduct in office and warns that the ruling could constrain future presidents. But Carroll’s lawyers say his attacks on her were not part of his official duties. His effort to turn the presidency into a defense against a jury verdict would extend immunity beyond the boundaries they say the law permits.
The award followed Trump’s 2019 denials of Carroll’s account. A separate jury concluded in 2023 that Trump assaulted Carroll in 1996, awarding her $5 million; he later stopped appealing that decision after the Supreme Court declined to hear his challenge. Trump has denied abusing her or knowing her.
Carroll’s lawyers also cited threats she faced after his statements. The Justice Department is separately seeking to substitute the United States as defendant, a move Carroll’s team says would end the defamation case under a law barring such claims against the government. The court now must decide whether to take Trump’s appeal.
Carroll asks justices to leave presidential immunity limits intact
Carroll wants the Supreme Court to preserve a verdict that Trump says improperly strips presidents of immunity for official conduct. His lawyers argue that personal liability for presidential actions could chill executive power and that the case warrants the justices’ attention. The dispute puts the limits of presidential immunity at the center of the appeal.
Carroll’s lawyers say Trump waited years to raise immunity, after choosing to contest the case, and that his statements about her were outside his presidential duties. They urge the court not to let litigation choices defeat a defense raised late in the proceedings. The justices must weigh that argument against Trump’s claim that the ruling threatens the institution of the presidency.
A federal jury awarded Carroll $83.3 million in January 2024 over Trump’s 2019 denials of her account. In 2023, another jury concluded Trump assaulted Carroll in 1996, awarding her $5 million. Trump denies abusing her or knowing her, and he stopped appealing the earlier verdict after the Supreme Court declined to hear his challenge.
The Justice Department has separately asked to replace Trump with the United States as defendant. Carroll’s lawyers say that substitution would end the case under a law barring defamation claims against the government. The court’s decision on whether to hear Trump’s appeal will determine the next step.
Reported by Raw Story, The Guardian US.
