From The Hill:
Appeals court declines to rehear Trump’s challenge to $83M E Jean Carroll verdict
(Ashleigh Fields, The Hill, April 29, 2026)
An appeals court on Wednesday declined to rehear President Trump’s challenge to an $83.3 million verdict for defaming magazine writer E. Jean Carroll.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision to reject a so-called “en banc” hearing, or by the full bench of judges, paves the way for Trump to ask the Supreme Court to hear his argument of presidential immunity.
A jury awarded Carroll $83 million in 2024 for defaming the magazine advice columnist over an encounter three decades ago.
She was also later awarded $5 million after a jury found that Trump had sexually abused Carroll in a department store dressing room in 1996 and later defamed her. Trump has appealed that decision to the Supreme Court, but it has not yet decided whether to hear the case.
Over a year after the $83 million ruling, Trump attempted to substitute the United States as a defendant in the case, citing statements made during his presidency.
If the Justice Department had been successfully swapped in as a defendant, the case would have been dropped, as it cannot be sued for defamation.
However, the 2nd Circuit said Wednesday that five judges voted against rehearing before all the judges, while three voted in favor of rehearing en banc.
“The fact of the matter is that no other defendant would be permitted to move to substitute the United States in his place, 15 months after trial and the entry of judgment against him,” U.S. Circuit Judge Denny Chin wrote for the majority.
“The court appropriately declined to convene en banc to revisit this issue,” Chin added.
Circuit Court judges Sarah A. L. Merriam and Maria Araújo Kahn, Beth Robinson and Myrna Pérez agreed to the denial of rehearing en banc. Circuit Court Judges Steven J. Menashi, Michael H. Park and Chief Judge Debra Ann Livingston dissented.
“Whatever one thinks about the merits of Trump v. United States, everyone agrees that it represents a significant legal development,” the judges collectively wrote.
“I would rehear the case en banc to bring our case law about the scope of presidential duties and immunity into conformity with decisions of the Supreme Court and to resolve these questions of exceptional importance in line with the constitutional separation of powers and normal judicial practice,” they added.
Caroll’s attorney expressed gratitude for the majority opinion in a Wednesday statement.
“We are pleased that the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has denied President Trump’s petition for an en banc hearing in connection with the verdict from the second jury trial,” attorney Robert Kaplan told ABC.
“E. Jean Carroll is eager for this case, originally filed in 2019, to be over so that she can finally obtain justice,” he added.
No comments:
Post a Comment