President Trump and the Justice Department are asking the Supreme Court to throw out an $83 million defamation verdict won by writer E. Jean Carroll, arguing that a sitting president cannot face personal liability for statements made while in office.
The twin filings, submitted electronically and expected to be formally docketed Wednesday, mark the most aggressive legal challenge yet to the Carroll verdicts. The DOJ invoked the Westfall Act, a federal law that shields government employees from being sued for conduct within the scope of their jobs, to argue that Trump's 2019 remarks about Carroll were official presidential acts, not private speech. Trump's private lawyers filed a separate appeal arguing presidential immunity and calling the damages "grossly excessive."
Together, the filings frame a stark question for the justices: Can a jury impose nearly $100 million in personal liability on a president for statements he made from the White House?
Federal attorneys pulled no punches in their petition. The Associated Press reported that the DOJ filing warned the Court directly:
"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."
The filing added bluntly: "That alone deserves this Court's attention." The Westfall Act, which the DOJ is invoking, substitutes the federal government as the defendant in civil suits when an employee's challenged conduct falls within the scope of federal employment. If the justices agree that Trump's comments about Carroll qualified, the verdict collapses, because the government itself cannot be sued for defamation under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
Trump's private legal team went further. Their filing accused the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan of dodging the central constitutional question. The appeals court, they wrote, "engaged in procedural contortions" to avoid addressing presidential immunity. The case, they argued, "cries out for this Court's review in this unprecedented case."
Trump attorney Justin Smith invoked the Supreme Court's 2024 ruling in Trump v. United States, which recognized broad presidential immunity for official acts. That decision, Newsmax reported, forms the backbone of the legal argument that the trial court conducted the case in violation of those protections.
"The decision in Trump v. United States makes clear that President Trump has a serious claim that the district court conducted the trial in this case in violation of presidential immunity."
Carroll, a longtime advice columnist and former television talk show host, testified twice before New York juries that Trump sexually assaulted her in a dressing room at Bergdorf Goodman, the luxury Manhattan retailer across the street from Trump Tower, in the spring of 1996. She first went public with the allegation in a 2019 memoir.
Trump denied the claim forcefully during his first term, saying Carroll made up the allegation "to help book sales," that he had "never met her," and that "she's not my type." Those statements, made while he occupied the Oval Office, became the basis for the $83 million defamation verdict a Manhattan jury delivered in January 2024.
A separate jury in 2023 had already awarded Carroll $5 million after concluding Trump subjected her to sexual abuse and defamed her for remarks made after his first term ended. That judgment has been paid. The Supreme Court declined Trump's appeal of that verdict in June without explanation, a standard practice but a significant setback.
Trump's lawyers in that earlier case had argued the trial judge broke federal evidence rules by allowing testimony from two other women who accused Trump of sexual abuse decades ago. Just the News reported that the high court rejected the appeal without comment, which is typical but left Trump's legal team without any guidance on the evidentiary issue.
Carroll subsequently collected nearly $5.6 million from Trump on that first verdict.
The larger prize, the $83 million award, remains unpaid. Lower courts have so far rejected Trump's appeals to overturn it, but the 2nd Circuit split over the decision and agreed to delay the payout until the Supreme Court weighs in. That pause in enforcement keeps the money out of Carroll's hands for now and gives the justices room to decide whether to take the case.
Trump's lawyers described the $83 million figure as a historic overreach. Their filing called it "the first case in our nation's history in which a court has imposed damages liability on a president for his conduct in office." Whether the justices agree to hear the case, or let the verdict stand as they did with the $5 million judgment, will determine whether that precedent hardens into settled law.
Carroll's lawyers declined to comment on the latest filings. Their silence leaves the public record one-sided for now, though they will have an opportunity to respond formally once the petition is docketed.
The legal saga has already produced its own subplot. The Justice Department has separately opened a criminal perjury investigation into Carroll, adding another layer to a dispute that has consumed years of litigation and tens of millions of dollars.
The stakes extend well beyond Trump and Carroll. About two years ago, the Supreme Court granted Trump broad immunity from criminal prosecution as a former president. That landmark ruling reshaped the legal landscape around presidential conduct, but it dealt with criminal liability, not civil damages. The Carroll case forces the justices to decide whether similar protections apply when a president faces a private lawsuit over statements made from the White House.
If the Court agrees to hear the case and sides with Trump, it would establish that presidents enjoy sweeping civil immunity for public remarks made during their term, even remarks that a jury has found defamatory. If the Court declines to intervene, or rules against Trump, the $83 million verdict stands and future presidents face the prospect of personal financial ruin for statements made while governing.
The 2nd Circuit's earlier refusal to reopen the verdict already narrowed Trump's options. His lawyers say the appeals court avoided the immunity question through procedural maneuvering rather than confronting it head-on. That claim, if the Supreme Court agrees, could itself become grounds for review.
As Breitbart noted, the DOJ's decision to back Trump's petition underscores that this is not merely a personal legal dispute. The federal government is telling the Supreme Court that the Westfall Act applies, that a president responding to public accusations while in office is acting within the scope of his federal duties.
The question now is whether five justices agree. The answer will shape the boundaries of presidential speech, and presidential liability, for generations.
