In a landmark decision on Monday, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a civil jury’s verdict requiring former President Donald Trump to pay $83.3 million to writer E. Jean Carroll, marking a pivotal moment in the long-running legal battle between the two high-profile figures. The ruling, delivered by a three-judge panel, affirmed that Trump’s repeated social media attacks and public statements against Carroll—after she accused him of sexual assault—had crossed the line into defamation and warranted the steep penalty imposed by the jury.
According to the Associated Press, the appeals court rejected Trump’s arguments that the damages, particularly the $65 million in punitive damages, were unreasonably excessive. Instead, the panel described the “degree of reprehensibility” of Trump’s conduct as “remarkably high, perhaps unprecedented.” The judges cited the “ongoing and prolific harassment” Carroll endured, including a barrage of death threats and threats of physical harm, as a direct consequence of Trump’s public statements.
Carroll, now 81, first came forward in her 2019 memoir, alleging that Trump sexually assaulted her in a Manhattan department store in 1996. She recounted a chance encounter at Bergdorf Goodman’s on Fifth Avenue that escalated from playful banter to a violent struggle in a dressing room. In her testimony at a 2023 trial, Carroll described how Trump slammed her against a wall, pulled down her tights, and forced himself on her. A jury found Trump liable for sexual abuse, though not for rape as defined under New York law, and awarded Carroll $5 million for the assault and Trump’s subsequent denials after his presidency.
But the legal saga didn’t end there. Trump’s attacks on Carroll’s character continued long after the initial trial, especially during his 2024 campaign as he sought to return to the White House. The court convened a second trial, this time solely to determine damages for Trump’s statements made in 2019 while serving as president—statements that, according to the court, intensified in both frequency and severity as litigation progressed. Trump, who skipped the first trial, attended the second, using the courtroom and the media to frame the lawsuit as a “politically motivated” effort to derail his presidential ambitions.
Throughout the proceedings, Carroll’s legal team, led by Roberta Kaplan, emphasized the real-world consequences of Trump’s words. Carroll testified that the fallout from Trump’s attacks upended her life: she received hundreds of death threats, lost her decades-long position at Elle magazine, and found herself shunned by television programs that once regularly sought her advice. Kaplan, in a statement following the appeals court’s ruling, said, “Earlier today, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed, in a comprehensive 70-page ruling, that E. Jean Carroll was telling the truth, and that President Donald Trump was not.” She added that they “look forward to an end to the appellate process.”
The appeals court’s decision underscored the gravity of Trump’s conduct. “The record in this case supports the district court’s determination that the ‘degree of reprehensibility’ of Mr. Trump’s conduct was remarkably high, perhaps unprecedented,” the panel wrote. They pointed to ample evidence that Trump acted with reckless indifference to Carroll’s health and safety, castigating her as a “politically and financially motivated liar,” and even insinuating that she was “too unattractive” for him to have assaulted—statements the court found particularly egregious.
Trump’s legal team, undeterred by the latest setback, signaled their intention to continue fighting. Through a spokesperson, they called for “an immediate end to the political weaponization of our justice system and a swift dismissal of all of the Witch Hunts, including the Democrat-funded travesty of the Carroll Hoaxes.” The case now appears likely to head to the Supreme Court, as Trump’s lawyers seek to challenge not only the size of the damages but also the broader implications for presidential immunity, a legal doctrine that has seen renewed debate in recent years.
One of the flashpoints during the second trial was the judge’s decision to bar Trump and his defense from arguing before the jury that he was innocent of the assault. The judge ruled—and the appeals court agreed—that the question of Trump’s liability for sexual abuse had already been settled by the first jury. Allowing the issue to be relitigated, the court reasoned, would undermine the integrity of the judicial process and needlessly retraumatize Carroll.
The appeals court also highlighted Trump’s ongoing attacks against Carroll, noting that they did not abate even during the trial itself. In one striking example, the court cited a statement Trump made just two days into the damages trial, in which he vowed he would continue to defame Carroll “a thousand times.” The court concluded that these “extraordinary and unprecedented” broadsides justified the steep punitive damages, stating, “Given the unique and egregious facts of this case, we conclude that the punitive damages award did not exceed the bounds of reasonableness.”
Carroll’s ordeal, as chronicled in court documents and media reports, has been both deeply personal and widely public. Her willingness to speak out against one of the most powerful men in the country—despite the threats and professional setbacks—has drawn both support and criticism. Supporters see the verdict as a rare victory for survivors of sexual abuse, while detractors, echoing Trump’s claims, argue that the case is part of a broader campaign to weaponize the legal system against political opponents.
The case has also reignited debate over the boundaries of presidential speech and accountability. Trump’s legal team argued that the damages were excessive, especially in light of the Supreme Court’s expansion of presidential immunity. However, the appeals court dismissed these arguments, emphasizing that the facts of the case were “extraordinary and egregious” and that the damages reflected the real harm caused by Trump’s actions.
As the legal battle appears poised to continue, the broader implications of the ruling are likely to reverberate far beyond the courtroom. For Carroll, the decision represents a measure of vindication after years of public scrutiny and personal risk. For Trump, it’s another high-profile legal challenge in a year already marked by courtroom drama and political controversy. And for the American public, the case serves as a stark reminder of the enduring power—and potential peril—of public speech in the digital age.
With the appeals court’s comprehensive ruling now on the record, both sides are bracing for what could be the final act in a saga that has spanned nearly a decade, tested the limits of the law, and captured the nation’s attention at every turn.
