The only reason this decision may come as a surprise is because the focus surrounding litigation involving President Donald Trump has primarily been on the bevy of suits challenging actions taken by his administration since he resumed office, rather than on the lawfare aimed at preventing that from happening. But, as you may recall, there were two defamation suits filed by E. Jean Carroll against Trump — one involving a statement made while he was in office the first time; the other involving a statement he made in 2022 — both of which were tried before New York District Court Judge Lewis Kaplan, and both of which resulted in verdicts against Trump.
The first one tried (Carroll II — involving the 2022 statement, plus allegations of sexual abuse) resulted in a $5 million verdict against Trump. The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that verdict in December 2024.
READ MORE: NEW: 2nd Circuit Rules on Trump's Appeal of E. Jean Carroll Verdict
The second one tried (Carroll I — involving the 2019 statement) took longer to get to trial because there were added legal questions there about whether Trump had some degree of immunity for the statement, given that it occurred during his presidency. That one, however, resulted in a jury verdict of $83.3 million against Trump, which he, of course, appealed as well.
On June 18, 2025, a panel of the 2nd Circuit issued a brief (very brief) order denying the motion by Trump's legal team to substitute the United States in as the defendant (in place of Trump), pursuant to the Westfall Act (28 U.S.C. § 2679(d)), which provides in pertinent part:
(1) Upon certification by the Attorney General that the defendant employee was acting within the scope of his office or employment at the time of the incident out of which the claim arose, any civil action or proceeding commenced upon such claim in a United States district court shall be deemed an action against the United States under the provisions of this title and all references thereto, and the United States shall be substituted as the party defendant.
Trump's legal team petitioned for a rehearing en banc, and Monday's order from the 2nd Circuit affirms that denial and affirms the underlying verdict. The court explains:
The present appeal is from the judgment in Carroll I. Although a panel of this Court has already rejected Trump's claim of presidential immunity, see Carroll v. Trump, 88 F.4th 418 (2d Cir. 2023) ("Carroll 3") (Cabranes, J.), Trump now argues that the Supreme Court's intervening decision in Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593 (2024), warrants reconsideration of our prior decision. He also challenges the district court's grant of partial summary judgment in favor of Carroll, its striking a portion of his testimony, its jury instructions on punitive damages, and the size of the jury's compensatory and punitive awards.
For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that Trump has failed to identify any grounds that would warrant reconsidering our prior holding on presidential immunity. We also conclude that the district court did not err in any of the challenged rulings and that the jury's damages awards are fair and reasonable. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
Trump has sought relief from the Supreme Court in Carroll II, requesting an extension of time (to November 10) to file a petition for writ of certiorari in that matter, which request was granted by Justice Sotomayor on September 4. It's almost certain he'll seek cert following Monday's 2nd Circuit decision in Carroll I, given the added issues regarding presidential immunity involved.
Editor’s Note: Do you enjoy RedState’s conservative reporting that takes on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth.
Join RedState VIP and use the promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership!