Donald Trump is back in the legal ring, fighting an $83.3 million judgment that could make even the wealthiest tycoon wince. This time, he’s arguing before a federal appeals court that presidential immunity should shield him from a hefty payout to writer E. Jean Carroll over remarks deemed defamatory.
Politico reported that Trump is challenging a massive verdict awarded to Carroll after a jury found his comments during his presidency tarnished her reputation, all stemming from her accusation of a decades-old assault.
Let’s rewind to 2019, when Carroll dropped a bombshell in her book, claiming Trump had assaulted her years prior.
Trump, never one to shy away from a microphone, fired back through White House channels, insisting he’d never met her and suggesting her work belonged on the fiction shelf. These sharp words, made in response to public inquiries, set the stage for a legal showdown.
Fast forward to January 2024, and a federal jury slapped Trump with that staggering $83.3 million penalty for damaging Carroll’s name. U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan had already ruled the statements defamatory, so the jury’s job was just to tally the cost. That’s a pricey bill for a few choice words, even for a billionaire.
Trump’s legal team isn’t taking this lying down, arguing before the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York on a recent Tuesday.
They’re leaning hard on a June 2024 Supreme Court ruling that grants broad immunity to former presidents for official acts. But here’s the rub—does trash-talking through the White House press office count as “official”?
“Severely damages the presidency,” declared Trump’s lawyer, Justin Smith, about the verdict. With all due respect to Smith, one might wonder if the presidency isn’t more damaged by endless courtroom dramas than by a single ruling. Still, the point stings—presidents shouldn’t be muzzled by fear of lawsuits over every public statement.
Smith also insisted, “President Trump was denied the protection of presidential immunity.” It’s a bold claim, but the three-judge panel—made up of Biden and Obama appointees—didn’t seem to be buying what he’s selling. Skepticism hung heavy in the air, especially since Trump may have missed his chance by not raising immunity sooner.
“Is not waivable,” Smith argued about the immunity defense. Yet, Carroll’s attorney, Roberta Kaplan, shot back with, “That presidential immunity can be waived.” Her logic, tied to prior court rulings, might just hold water if the panel sticks to precedent over principle.
Kaplan doubled down, stating, “Trump waived it here.” If the court agrees, this could be game over for Trump’s immunity gambit. It’s a reminder that even the toughest fighters can trip over their own footwork in the legal arena.
The panel, consisting of Judges Maria Araújo Kahn, Sarah A.L. Merriam, and Denny Chin, didn’t exactly roll out the red carpet for Trump’s arguments.
Their doubt about applying the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling to this civil case suggests a steep uphill battle. Could this be another instance where progressive-leaning courts flex their muscle?
Adding to the drama, the same panel recently rejected a Justice Department bid to step in for Trump in this lawsuit. Just days before the latest arguments, they shut that door tight. It’s almost as if they’re saying, “You’re on your own, Mr. President.”
Earlier this month, the full 2nd Circuit also refused to revisit a separate $5 million judgment against Trump for past abuse and defamation of Carroll. A prior panel had already upheld that verdict, piling on the legal woes. It’s a double whammy that would test anyone’s resolve.
Kaplan, representing Carroll, isn’t mincing words either, noting, “The president is not above the law.” Her take on the Supreme Court’s immunity decision cuts to the core of a principle many cherish, even if conservatives might argue it’s selectively applied. Balance in justice shouldn’t mean a free pass for personal vendettas dressed as lawsuits.
Smith countered with talk of “an intervening decision” from the Supreme Court that could shift the tide. But if the panel’s skepticism is any clue, that life raft might already be sinking. Trump’s team will need more than legal Hail Marys to dodge this financial bullet.