A federal appeals court has declined to convene a full panel of judges to reconsider the $83 million defamation verdict awarded to writer E. Jean Carroll. The decision by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals marks a significant setback for Donald Trump’s legal team, who had sought an “en banc” hearing—a rare procedure where all active judges on a court review a case to resolve conflicting decisions within a panel.
Зміст
The Decision and the Divide
The court’s refusal to rehear the case was not unanimous, highlighting a deep judicial split regarding the legal implications of the trial. The vote broke down as follows:
– Five judges voted against a rehearing.
– Three judges voted in favor of a full panel review.
Judge Denny Chin, writing for the majority, noted that this was the fourth time the court had denied a request for a full panel to hear the appeal. He defended the original verdict, emphasizing that the record demonstrated a pattern of behavior by Trump that caused significant harm to Carroll.
Background: The Defamation Claim
The legal battle stems from allegations that Donald Trump sexually abused E. Jean Carroll in a department store dressing room in the mid-1990s. The specific defamation lawsuit arose after Trump publicly denied meeting Carroll, dismissed her claims as false, and suggested she was “not his type”—comments that Carroll argued were intended to humiliate her and damage her reputation.
Key milestones in the litigation include:
* 2019: Carroll first publicly detailed the allegations in her memoir.
* May 2023: A jury found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation.
* January 2024: A second jury awarded Carroll $83 million specifically for defamation.
The Legal Disagreement: Immunity and Scope of Office
The three dissenting judges—Steven J. Menashi, Michael H. Park, and Debra Ann Livingston—raised critical legal arguments that underscore the broader complexities of prosecuting a former president. Their dissent focused on two primary points:
- Government Substitution: They argued that the United States should have been substituted as the defendant after the Attorney General certified that Trump was acting within the “scope of his office” when the incidents occurred.
- Presidential Immunity: The dissenters suggested that Trump should have been permitted to argue for protections under presidential immunity.
Furthermore, the dissenting judges expressed concerns regarding the scale of the penalty, labeling the $83 million award as “grossly excessive” and suggesting that a new trial should be granted.
Why This Matters
This ruling is more than a dispute over a single defamation case; it touches upon the evolving legal boundaries of presidential immunity and the extent to which a former leader can be held personally liable for actions related to their time in office. By denying the en banc hearing, the court has effectively upheld the lower court’s decision, leaving Trump with the option to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
“The record showed that Trump made multiple statements over many years accusing Carroll of lying… As a result, Carroll was harassed and humiliated, subjected to death threats, and feared for her physical safety for years.” — Judge Denny Chin
Conclusion
By rejecting a full-court review, the 2nd Circuit has maintained the massive defamation award against Donald Trump, though the legal debate over presidential immunity and the “scope of office” remains a volatile issue headed toward the Supreme Court.
