Lower courts repeatedly upheld the damages award, Carroll’s lawyers told the justices

On 30 October, E Jean Carroll’s legal team filed an opposition to Donald Trump’s request that the Supreme Court consider his appeal of the $83 million damages verdict. The team, led by attorney Roberta Kaplan, asked the justices not to hear the case, arguing that lower courts had repeatedly upheld the award.

A first jury found that Trump sexually abused and defamed Carroll and awarded her $5 million, less than one year before jurors delivered the $83 million damages award on 26 January 2024. The first case followed Carroll’s claim that Trump attacked her in a dressing room of a Tony Manhattan department store several decades earlier. Trump has repeatedly denied wrongdoing in relation to Carroll.

Carroll, a former Elle columnist and author, made the allegation public in a June 2019 New York magazine article that was an excerpt from what was then her forthcoming book, What Do We Need Men For? A Modest Proposal. The second trial weighed damages after the first jury’s findings. Trump’s legal arguments focus in part on his 2019 statements, including when he called Carroll a liar, and his lawyers contend that presidential immunity protects him from liability for conduct during his time in office.

Trump’s lawyers told the Supreme Court that “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 … that alone deserves this court’s attention.” They said Supreme Court review would “protect not the President himself, but the institution of the Presidency.” They also warned that “after all, the specter of personal liability for official conduct, in an amount that would bankrupt virtually any other President, will chill the exercise of executive power by future Presidents.”

Carroll’s lawyers answered that the damages award had already been upheld repeatedly by lower courts, undermining Trump’s request. They wrote that the justices did not need “to bail out this president from the consequences of his repeated litigation choices.” “While this President may want this Court’s help, the Presidency does not need it,” they wrote.

Kaplan’s team also described the length of the litigation and the threats directed at Carroll. The lawyers said Carroll had litigated the case for seven years through five appeals, eight stay motions and six days of trial while facing thousands of threats of death and sexual violence from Trump’s followers.

The lawyers further wrote that Trump’s defamatory statements “had a domino effect” and that Carroll was “instantly and continuously attacked on Twitter and Facebook and in emails.” They said the attacks included “threats of sexual violence, physical violence, and death.”

The procedural paths for the two awards have diverged. In September, Trump agreed to stop fighting the first jury verdict after the Supreme Court once again rebuffed his efforts to hear that appeal. The current filing concerns the later $83 million award, which his lawyers ask the Supreme Court to review.

Asked for comment on Carroll’s filing, a spokesman for Trump’s legal team said: “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. President Trump will keep winning against Liberal Lawfare, as he continues to focus on his mission to Make America Great Again.”

At issue is whether presidential immunity protects Trump’s 2019 statements. Trump’s lawyers say Supreme Court review would protect the presidency from personal liability for official conduct. Carroll’s lawyers say the lower courts have already upheld the verdict and that the justices should decline Trump’s request.