The Second Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Donald Trump's attempt to have a full federal appeals court rehear his challenge to an $83.3 million defamation judgment against him, allowing the case to proceed directly to the Supreme Court.
Key Takeaways
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Donald Trump's request for a full-court rehearing on his $83.3 million defamation judgment to E. Jean Carroll. This allows Trump to appeal directly to the Supreme Court.
- Second Circuit denies en banc rehearing in divided 5-3 vote
- Judge Denny Chin notes this is the fourth denial of such a request in this case
- Trump's legal team argued for presidential immunity and substitution by the U.S. government
- Carroll's attorney states she seeks final justice after years of litigation
According to multiple reports, Judge Denny Chin wrote that this was the fourth time the Second Circuit had denied such a request in this specific defamation case involving writer E. Jean Carroll. The court rejected Trump's arguments that he should be dismissed as a defendant because he made the comments while president and that the United States should replace him.
The ruling came in one of two cases brought by Carroll, with the high court already considering another case where Trump was ordered to pay $5 million for defamation and sexual abuse allegations. Chin noted that Carroll first publicly asserted in 2019 in a memoir that Trump had sexually abused her in the 1990s. Trump then claimed he had never met her, called it a false accusation, and said “she’s not my type” in an interview.
The defamation case was filed by Carroll in November 2019. Trump did not attend a May 2023 trial when a jury found that he had sexually abused Carroll and later defamed her. However, he briefly testified at a second trial in January 2024, where the jury awarded Carroll $83 million for defamation.
In a dissenting opinion written by Judge Steven J Menashi, three circuit judges agreed that Trump should have been able to argue presidential immunity and be granted a new trial. They also concluded that the size of the award for defamation was “grossly excessive.”
How this summary was created
This summary synthesizes reporting from 4 independent publishers using AI. All sources are cited and linked below. NewsBalance is a news aggregator and media literacy tool, not a news publisher. AI-generated content may contain errors or inaccuracies — always verify important information with the original sources.