In a stunning legal blow that underscores the principle that no one is above the law, not even the president of the United States, a federal appeals court in Manhattan has upheld an \$83.3 million judgment against Donald Trump for defaming the woman he raped in a luxury department store dressing room.
The ruling delivers a powerful victory for survivors of sexual assault and a humiliating defeat for a president accustomed to operating with impunity as he tries to distract from his refusal to release files linking him to child sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein.
The three-judge panel from the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously rejected Trump’s claim that his presidential immunity protected him from liability for destroying E. Jean Carroll’s reputation after she came forward with her account of his sexual violence.
The court affirmed that Trump’s campaign of defamation against Carroll—whom he dismissed as “not my type” while accusing her of fabricating the attack to sell books—was worthy of the massive penalty levied by a jury of his peers.
The appeals court issued a blistering 70-page opinion dismantling each of Trump’s legal arguments, leaving no doubt about the egregious nature of his conduct.
The judges found that the jury’s damages awards were “fair and reasonable” given the extraordinary facts of the case, noting that Trump’s attacks were not isolated but continued throughout nearly five years of litigation and intensified as the trial approached.
The unsigned ruling emphasized that Trump had shown reckless indifference to Carroll’s health and safety.
Most significantly, the court rejected Trump’s attempt to invoke the Supreme Court’s recent presidential immunity ruling, declaring that he had failed to identify any grounds that would warrant reconsidering its prior holding.
The refusal to grant Trump special protection sends an unmistakable message that presidential power has limits, especially when it comes to personal misconduct unrelated to official duties.
Carroll, now 81, testified about the devastating consequences of Trump’s relentless attacks.
She described how the president’s false statements unleashed online abuse and death threats, destroyed her professional reputation, and ended her decades-long career as an advice columnist at Elle magazine.
The court wrote that the degree of reprehensibility of Trump’s conduct was “remarkably high, perhaps unprecedented,” and that Carroll had been subjected to prolific harassment, including death threats and threats of physical harm.
Carroll’s account of the assault itself, which occurred in the mid-1990s at Bergdorf Goodman, was consistent and credible. She described how a chance encounter with Trump turned violent when he slammed her against a dressing room wall, pulled down her tights, and forced himself on her.
While a jury stopped short of finding Trump liable for rape under New York’s narrow legal definition, which requires penile penetration, it did find him liable for sexual abuse.
Judge Lewis Kaplan later clarified that the verdict established Trump had raped Carroll according to the common understanding of the term.
The breakdown of the $83.3 million verdict reveals the seriousness with which the jury viewed Trump’s misconduct: $18.3 million in compensatory damages for emotional and reputational harm and $65 million in punitive damages designed to stop Trump from continuing his defamatory statements.
The appeals court strongly endorsed this allocation, noting that Trump would not stop defaming Carroll unless subjected to a substantial financial penalty. With interest accruing during the appeals process, Trump now owes Carroll approximately $89.7 million.
The opinion also detailed how Trump’s attacks on Carroll were part of a broader pattern of abusive behavior toward women who challenged him.
Evidence included the infamous “Access Hollywood” tape, where Trump boasted about grabbing women without consent, and testimony from two other women who accused him of similar misconduct.
Despite being found liable in the first trial, Trump continued his defamatory statements, even during the second trial.
The court noted that Trump made disruptive comments and gestures in front of the judge and jury and publicly proclaimed that he would continue to defame Carroll “a thousand times.”
Trump’s legal team argued that the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision on presidential immunity should shield him from liability in Carroll’s civil case.
They claimed that when Trump denied Carroll’s allegations in 2019, he was speaking in his official capacity as president and that holding him accountable would undermine the executive branch.
The appeals court rejected that argument, ruling that the immunity decision did not bar liability in Carroll’s case because Trump’s defamatory statements were personal misconduct, not official acts.
Carroll’s legal battle has been long and arduous. She first accused Trump in 2019, publishing her account in New York Magazine and in her memoir.
When Trump immediately denied her allegations—claiming he had never met her despite photographic evidence showing them together—she filed her first defamation lawsuit.
That case was followed by a second under New York’s Adult Survivors Act, which allowed victims of decades-old assaults to sue. The second case proceeded first, resulting in a $5 million verdict that established Trump’s liability for sexual abuse and defamation.
Trump skipped the first trial entirely but attended the second, using his presence to create courtroom spectacles and speaking to reporters outside to portray the lawsuit as part of a broader effort to smear him and block his return to the White House.
Despite this appellate victory, Carroll’s fight may not be over. Trump is likely to seek review from the full 2nd Circuit and eventually the Supreme Court.
He has already indicated he will ask the Supreme Court to overturn the separate $5 million verdict from the first trial.
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority has been sympathetic to Trump in other cases, but the clear reasoning of the 2nd Circuit’s ruling may make it harder to overturn.
Carroll’s attorney, Roberta Kaplan, welcomed the decision, stating that the court had affirmed in a comprehensive ruling that Carroll was telling the truth and Trump was not.
She added that they look forward to an end to the appellate process so that justice will finally be done.
This case represents far more than a financial transaction between two individuals. It establishes critical precedent about the limits of presidential power and the accountability of those who wield it.
By affirming that even a sitting president can be held liable for personal misconduct, the 2nd Circuit has reinforced the principle that no one is above the law.
For survivors of sexual asurbansault, Carroll’s victory offers validation that truth can prevail over power and that perseverance in the face of intimidation can yield justice.
Her courage in standing up to a president who attacked her both in a dressing room and in the public square has rewritten the rules of accountability for the most powerful person in the world.
Trump’s attacks on Carroll continued even after verdicts were rendered against him, demonstrating his contempt for the judicial system and belief that his status protected him from consequences.
The 2nd Circuit’s ruling delivers a message that presidential status provides no shield for personal wrongdoing and that the judiciary remains capable of checking even the most powerful offenders.
In a political climate often characterized by impunity and exception, this decision stands as a defense of the principle that the law applies equally to all.
For that, it deserves recognition not just as a victory for Carroll, but for the American justice system itself.
Discover more from NJTODAY.NET
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.