President Donald Trump's lawyers filed a late-Tuesday motion asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to freeze the $83.3 million defamation judgment won by E. Jean Carroll, buying time for the president to bring his case before the Supreme Court on grounds of presidential immunity.
The 24-page filing, submitted by Trump's presidential lawyer Justin Smith of the James Otis Law Group, argues that allowing the judgment to proceed while the Supreme Court weighs the case would cause Trump irreparable harm, and could make any future reversal meaningless.
What makes the motion unusual: Carroll's own legal team does not oppose it, provided Trump increases his existing bond by roughly $7.46 million to cover post-judgment interest. That detail, buried in the filing, signals both sides see value in letting the Supreme Court have the final word, though for very different reasons.
Trump's lawyers are framing the entire Carroll saga as an unconstitutional intrusion on presidential authority. The filing invokes both presidential immunity and the Westfall Act, a federal statute that can shield government employees, including the president, from personal liability for statements made in the scope of their duties.
As Fox News Digital reported, Smith wrote in the filing:
"This Court should now stay the mandate to allow President Trump to present important questions relating to, without limitation, Presidential immunity and the Westfall Act to the Supreme Court."
The filing goes further, warning that enforcement of the judgment during Supreme Court review would gut the very protections the high court has recognized for sitting presidents:
"Issuing the mandate and permitting lower court proceedings to move forward during Supreme Court review of these significant questions would 'eviscerate the immunity [the Supreme Court has] recognized,' as well as create a likely inability to recover funds if the Supreme Court reverses, as it should."
Trump's lawyers also stated there is a "fair prospect" that the Supreme Court will reverse what they call the Second Circuit panel's "erroneous decisions" that both presidential immunity and the Westfall Act were waived.
The $83.3 million judgment at issue here is the larger of two separate verdicts Carroll secured against Trump. That award came in 2024 and stemmed from defamation claims over remarks Trump made about Carroll. The case traces back to November 2019, when Carroll originally filed suit during Trump's first term.
A separate $5 million verdict, delivered in May 2023, found Trump liable for sexually abusing Carroll and defaming her. Trump has consistently denied the allegations. His legal team has now formally asked the Supreme Court to overturn that earlier verdict as well, the Associated Press reported, arguing the trial judge wrongly allowed "highly inflammatory propensity evidence," including testimony from two other women accusing Trump of similar misconduct.
In that Supreme Court filing, Trump's lawyers wrote: "President Trump has clearly and consistently denied that this supposed incident ever occurred."
Carroll's attorney, Roberta Kaplan, pushed back. "We do not believe that President Trump will be able to present any legal issues in the Carroll cases that merit review by the United States Supreme Court," she said.
The Supreme Court has already been busy with high-profile matters this term, including a fast-tracked Louisiana redistricting ruling that cleared the way for a new congressional map.
Trump's petition in the Carroll case has reached the justices' desks. Newsmax reported that the Supreme Court circulated Trump's petition for the justices' private February 20 conference, where they will decide whether to grant review. That conference is the first formal gateway, if at least four justices vote to hear the case, it moves to full briefing and oral argument.
Trump's appeal on the $5 million verdict challenges the trial's evidentiary foundation, arguing that the inclusion of other assault allegations and the Access Hollywood tape prejudiced the jury. His lawyers wrote in a reply brief that "it is deeply damaging to the fabric of our Republic for President Trump, in the midst of a historic presidency, to have to take his focus away from his singular and unique duties as Chief Executive to continue fighting against decades-old, false allegations."
They added bluntly: "This mistreatment of a President cannot be allowed to stand."
The long odds of Supreme Court review are well understood, the court accepts only a small fraction of petitions each term. But Trump's team believes the immunity questions presented here are substantial enough to clear that bar, particularly after three Second Circuit judges identified what Trump's lawyers describe as legal errors in a dissent from the full court's denial of rehearing en banc.
The political dimension of the court's docket has drawn attention from both parties. Trump himself called for consequences after House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries branded the Supreme Court "illegitimate", a sign of how charged the court's role has become in the current political landscape.
The Westfall Act argument is worth understanding on its own terms. The statute allows the federal government to substitute itself as the defendant when a federal employee, including the president, is sued for conduct within the scope of official duties. If Trump's statements about Carroll were made in his capacity as president, the Westfall Act could potentially shield him from personal liability entirely.
Lower courts have so far rejected that argument, concluding that Trump's remarks about Carroll fell outside his official duties. Trump's team disputes that conclusion and wants the Supreme Court to weigh in definitively.
The presidential immunity claim runs along a parallel track. The Supreme Court's own recent jurisprudence has expanded the scope of presidential immunity in other contexts. Trump's lawyers argue that the Second Circuit's refusal to apply immunity here conflicts with those principles.
The combination of the two arguments gives Trump multiple paths to relief, and makes the case a potential vehicle for the Supreme Court to clarify the boundaries of presidential legal protection in civil suits.
Separately, the court has also intervened in other politically sensitive matters this term, including stepping in to preserve mifepristone mail access by pausing Fifth Circuit restrictions.
The filing's note that "Carroll does not oppose this motion" is a tactical detail worth pausing on. Carroll's team agreed not to fight the stay, but only if Trump posts additional security. The proposed bond increase of roughly $7.46 million would cover post-judgment interest that has been accruing on the original $83.3 million award.
For Carroll, the calculus is straightforward: a stay preserves the judgment while ensuring the money remains available if she ultimately prevails. For Trump, the stay prevents Carroll from initiating proceedings to execute on the judgment while the Supreme Court decides whether to take the case.
Neither side benefits from a premature scramble over enforcement while the highest court in the country is still deciding whether to review the underlying legal questions.
Justin Smith, the lawyer who filed Tuesday's motion, occupies an unusual position. He serves as Trump's presidential lawyer and is affiliated with the James Otis Law Group. But he is also a judicial nominee, Trump nominated him in early March to serve as a United States Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit. The Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings on his nomination on April 15.
That dual role, arguing the president's case in one federal court while awaiting confirmation to another, has drawn notice. It underscores the tight overlap between the administration's legal defense strategy and its approach to shaping the federal judiciary.
Internal judicial conflicts have surfaced elsewhere on the court's docket as well, as seen when Justice Alito fired back at Justice Jackson's lone dissent in the Louisiana redistricting case.
The Second Circuit must now decide whether to grant the stay. If it does, the $83.3 million judgment remains frozen while Trump's petition works its way through the Supreme Court's process. If the court denies the stay, Carroll could begin enforcement proceedings, though Trump would likely seek emergency relief from the Supreme Court itself.
The February 20 conference on the $5 million verdict petition is the next major milestone. A decision to grant certiorari on either Carroll case would mark a significant development in the ongoing legal fight over the limits of presidential immunity in civil litigation.
Just The News reported that Trump's legal team has framed the broader appeal as part of a fight against what it calls "liberal lawfare." A spokesperson for Trump's legal team told the Associated Press: "The American People stand with President Trump as they demand an immediate end to all of the Witch Hunts, including the Democrat-funded travesty of the Carroll Hoaxes."
Whether the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case remains an open question. But the filing makes one thing clear: the president's legal team believes the lower courts got the immunity question wrong, and they intend to make the justices say so, one way or the other.
If a sitting president can be dragged through civil court for statements made from the White House, the immunity doctrine means less than the parchment it was written on.
