On Monday, September 8, 2025, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals delivered a resounding verdict: former President Donald Trump must pay $83.3 million to writer E. Jean Carroll for defamation. The ruling, which upheld a civil jury’s earlier decision, represents a significant moment in the long, contentious legal saga between Trump and Carroll—a case that has drawn national attention and fierce debate over presidential accountability, freedom of speech, and the enduring impact of public attacks.
The three-judge panel unanimously rejected Trump’s appeal, finding that the jury’s damages awards were “fair and reasonable,” according to The Associated Press. The court’s opinion, referencing the hundreds of death threats Carroll received, described the “degree of reprehensibility” in Trump’s conduct as “remarkably high, perhaps unprecedented.” The ruling emphasized that Trump’s repeated and escalating attacks on Carroll warranted the steep financial penalty, especially given “the unique and egregious facts of this case.”
Trump’s legal team had argued that the damages—particularly the $65 million in punitive damages—were excessive and called for a new trial in light of a recent Supreme Court decision expanding presidential immunity. However, the appeals court found those arguments unpersuasive, stating that Trump “failed to identify any grounds that would warrant reconsidering our prior holding on presidential immunity.” The panel concluded that the lower court “did not err in any of the challenged rulings and that the jury's damages awards are fair and reasonable,” as reported by CNN and CNBC.
The roots of this legal battle trace back to Carroll’s 2019 memoir, in which she accused Trump of sexually assaulting her in the mid-1990s at Bergdorf Goodman, a luxury department store in Manhattan. Carroll, a longtime advice columnist, described a chance encounter with Trump that escalated from flirtation to a violent struggle in a dressing room. Trump has consistently denied the allegations, calling Carroll’s claims “totally false,” a “hoax,” and asserting she was motivated by money and politics. He also infamously declared that Carroll was “not my type,” a statement that became a flashpoint in the public discourse surrounding the case.
Following Carroll’s public accusation, Trump launched a series of public attacks against her, both during and after his presidency. These statements, which included calling Carroll a liar and insinuating she fabricated the story to sell her book, were the focus of two separate defamation lawsuits. The first lawsuit addressed Trump’s comments made while he was president, leading to the $83.3 million verdict. The second, made possible by a New York law allowing a one-year window for adult victims of sexual offenses to file civil suits, centered on statements Trump made after leaving office and the alleged assault itself.
In the second case, a jury found Trump liable for sexual abuse but did not find that he had committed rape as defined under New York law. Carroll was awarded $5 million in damages in May 2023. The findings in this case became pivotal, as they established the veracity of Carroll’s claims and set the stage for the subsequent trial focused solely on damages for Trump’s presidential-era statements.
Throughout the litigation, Carroll testified to the immense personal cost of Trump’s attacks. She described living in fear after receiving hundreds of death threats and losing her long-standing career at Elle magazine. The appeals court acknowledged these repercussions, noting that Trump’s conduct “involved malice and deceit, caused severe emotional injury, and continued over at least a five-year period.” The court also highlighted that Trump’s attacks became “more extreme and frequent as the trial approached,” including a moment during the proceedings when he declared he would “continue to defame Carroll a thousand times.”
Trump’s lawyers maintained that the verdict “severely damages the presidency and is a great miscarriage of justice,” arguing that his comments were protected by presidential immunity because they were made through official White House channels and addressed matters of public concern. They contended that the July 2024 Supreme Court ruling broadening presidential immunity should apply retroactively and shield Trump from liability. Carroll’s legal team, led by Roberta Kaplan, countered that the statements at issue were personal, not official acts. “He was defaming Carroll because of her revelation that many years before he assumed office, he sexually assaulted her. The defamation at issue concerned quintessentially ‘personal’ conduct,” Kaplan argued.
The appeals court sided with Carroll, finding that Trump’s immunity defense was both untimely and inapplicable. The panel wrote, “Given the unique and egregious facts of this case, we conclude that the punitive damages award did not exceed the bounds of reasonableness.” The court was particularly struck by the persistence and intensity of Trump’s attacks, stating that “the jury was entitled to find that Trump would not stop defaming Carroll unless he was subjected to a substantial financial penalty.”
Carroll’s lawyer, Roberta Kaplan, celebrated the decision. In a statement quoted by CNBC and NBC News, she said, “We look forward to an end to the appellate process so that justice will finally be done.” Trump’s spokesperson, meanwhile, condemned the ruling as part of “the political weaponization of our justice system” and called for a “swift dismissal of all of the Witch Hunts, including the Democrat-funded travesty of the Carroll Hoaxes.”
The appeals court’s decision is likely not the final chapter in this saga. Trump’s legal team has indicated plans to appeal to the Supreme Court, both in this case and in the earlier $5 million verdict. As of now, Carroll has not received any of the damages awarded by the juries in either trial—a reminder of the protracted nature of high-profile civil litigation, especially when it involves a former president and a nationally recognized accuser.
Political observers note the broader implications of the case. The panel that delivered Monday’s ruling included two judges appointed by President Joe Biden and one by President Barack Obama, a fact that Trump’s supporters have seized upon in their criticism of the process. Yet the court’s opinion was unanimous and unsigned, underscoring the judiciary’s consensus on the facts and the law, at least at this stage.
For Carroll, the ruling is both vindication and a testament to the challenges faced by accusers in the public eye. For Trump, it is another legal setback as he continues to campaign for the presidency amid ongoing legal battles. The case stands as a stark illustration of the enduring power of words—and the real-world consequences that can follow when those words cross the line into defamation.
As the legal process moves toward a likely Supreme Court review, both sides remain resolute. The outcome will not only determine the fate of the $83.3 million award but also set important precedents for the boundaries of presidential speech and the rights of private citizens who challenge those in power.
