The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals granted President Donald Trump a stay on Tuesday, temporarily blocking enforcement of the $83 million defamation judgment awarded to E. Jean Carroll and giving the U.S. Supreme Court time to decide whether it will take up the case. The ruling means Trump does not have to write a check, at least not yet, while his legal team prepares a petition to the nation's highest court.
The stay comes with a condition: Trump must post a $7.4 million bond to cover any additional interest that accrues during the delay. Carroll's legal team, notably, did not oppose the motion, so long as the bond was increased to account for post-judgment interest.
For anyone who has watched the Carroll litigation grind through the federal courts over the past two years, the stay represents a meaningful, if temporary, procedural win for Trump and a recognition that serious constitutional questions remain unresolved.
The timeline matters. In May 2023, a jury awarded Carroll $5 million after concluding Trump had sexually abused her in a Manhattan luxury department store dressing room in the spring of 1996 and then defamed her after she published her account in a 2019 memoir. Carroll, now 82, is a longtime advice columnist.
A second jury, in January 2024, returned the far larger $83 million defamation verdict. Trump testified briefly during that trial. Last September, a three-judge panel of the 2nd Circuit upheld the January 2024 verdict, writing that Trump's public attacks on Carroll became "more extreme and frequent as the trial approached."
The appeals court went further, noting that Trump continued those attacks during the trial itself. In one statement issued just two days into the proceedings, the court said, Trump proclaimed he would continue to defame Carroll "a thousand times."
Late last month, the full 2nd Circuit refused Trump's request for a rare en banc rehearing, a meeting of all active judges on the circuit to reconsider the panel's decision. That denial set the stage for a Supreme Court petition.
Trump's attorney, Justin D. Smith, told the court last week there was a "fair prospect" the Supreme Court will find in favor of Trump. The filing laid out several grounds for the challenge, but the most consequential centers on presidential immunity.
Trump has asserted "absolute immunity" for comments he made while serving as president, statements in which he disavowed knowing Carroll, attacked her motivations as politically driven, and characterized her claims as a "made up scam." His legal team has also raised the Westfall Act, a federal statute that can shield government employees from personal liability for actions taken within the scope of their official duties.
"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."
That was Smith's argument in the filing, as reported by the Associated Press. The immunity question is not frivolous. The Supreme Court has shown a willingness in recent terms to grapple with the boundaries of executive power and presidential prerogative, a trend that has produced significant rulings affecting the current administration.
Whether the justices agree to hear this particular case is another matter entirely. But the 2nd Circuit's decision to grant the stay suggests even the appeals court recognized the questions are substantial enough to warrant a pause before forcing payment.
The stay does not overturn either verdict. It does not erase the jury findings. It delays enforcement of the $83 million judgment while the Supreme Court decides whether to intervene. Just the News reported that the Supreme Court is now actively considering whether to get involved, with Trump continuing to challenge both Carroll verdicts.
If the Supreme Court declines to take the case, the stay dissolves and the judgment becomes immediately enforceable. If the Court agrees to hear it, the legal battle enters an entirely new phase, one where questions of presidential speech, immunity, and the proper scope of defamation liability could be reexamined at the highest level.
The $7.4 million bond requirement is itself a signal. It protects Carroll's financial interest during the delay while acknowledging that the appeal has enough merit to justify a pause. Carroll's team accepted this arrangement, a practical concession that keeps the judgment intact on paper while the appellate clock runs.
The broader legal landscape around Trump and the federal courts continues to shift. A recent D.C. Circuit ruling ordering a judge to end a contempt inquiry into the Trump administration illustrated the ongoing friction between the executive branch and the judiciary, friction that shapes how courts handle politically charged cases.
Carroll's allegations date back nearly three decades. She has said Trump sexually attacked her in a dressing room at a Manhattan luxury department store in the spring of 1996. She first made the claims publicly in 2019, publishing them in a memoir. Trump has consistently denied the allegations and called them a "made up scam."
The May 2023 jury found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation, awarding Carroll $5 million. The January 2024 jury, focused on defamation, returned the $83 million verdict after hearing evidence about Trump's public statements regarding Carroll over a period the 2nd Circuit described as spanning at least five years.
Trump has called Carroll's motivations political and has argued she sought to promote her memoir. His legal team has framed his public statements as protected speech, either as presidential communications shielded by immunity or as opinion rather than actionable defamation.
The Washington Examiner noted that Trump continues to challenge the award on multiple grounds, with the immunity argument at the center of his Supreme Court strategy.
The ball now sits with the Supreme Court. Trump's legal team will file a petition for certiorari, asking the justices to take the case. The Court receives thousands of such petitions each term and accepts only a fraction. But cases involving presidential immunity, the scope of executive speech, and the intersection of defamation law with political discourse have historically drawn the Court's attention.
The current Court has shown it is willing to wade into contested territory. Recent terms have produced unanimous decisions on First Amendment questions and split rulings on executive authority that have surprised observers on both sides.
For Trump, the stay buys time and keeps $83 million in his pocket while the legal process plays out. For Carroll, the $7.4 million bond offers a measure of financial protection. For the rest of us, the case raises a question that matters well beyond these two parties: when a sitting president speaks publicly about a private citizen's claims, where does protected speech end and actionable defamation begin?
The Associated Press reported that the stay remains in effect until the Supreme Court either reviews the case or declines to hear it. No timeline for that decision has been announced.
Meanwhile, the full procedural history, from the circuit panel's affirmance to the en banc denial to the stay, reflects a legal system still wrestling with how to handle cases that sit at the intersection of law, politics, and presidential power.
The Supreme Court will have the final word. And in a case built on the question of what a president can say, and what it costs when courts decide he said too much, that word will matter far beyond E. Jean Carroll and Donald Trump.