Federal appeals court won’t rehear Trump’s appeal of E. Jean Carroll’s $83 million jury award

By Kara Scannell

(CNN) — A split federal appeals court said its full bench of judges would not rehear President Donald Trump’s appeal of the $83 million jury award for defaming magazine columnist E Jean Carroll.

The decision paves the way for Trump to ask the US Supreme Court to hear his arguments involving presidential immunity following the high court’s landmark 2024 decision.

In a split decision, a majority of judges on the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied Trump’s motion to have his appeal heard “en banc” or by the full bench of judges.

The decision is the latest turn in a six -year legal battle between Carroll and Trump that resulted in two civil trials including one where Trump briefly took the witness stand.

“The American People stand with President Trump in demanding an immediate end to the unlawful, radical weaponization of our justice system, and a swift dismissal of all of the Witch Hunts, including the illegal, Democrat-funded travesty of the Carroll Hoaxes—the defense of which the Attorney General has determined is legally required to be taken over by the Department of Justice because Carroll based her false claims on the President’s official acts,” a spokesman for Trump’s legal team told CNN. “President Trump and his legal team will be appealing this decision as he continues to fight against, and consistently defeat, Liberal Lawfare.”

Roberta Kaplan, a lawyer for Carroll, also issued a statement:

“E. Jean Carroll is eager for this case, originally filed in 2019, to be over so that she can finally obtain justice.”

Trump had asked the full bench to rehear arguments that a panel of judges rejected in September. The panel affirmed the jury’s verdict that Trump defamed Carroll when in 2022, during his first term, he denied her allegations of sexual assault, said she wasn’t his type, and suggested she made up the allegations to sell copies of her new book. The jury awarded Carroll $83 million in damages.

In 2023, a different jury found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation of Carroll over an alleged assault that occurred in the mid-1990s at a New York department store and for statements he made in 2019 denying it happened. That jury awarded Carroll $5 million in damages.

Trump asked the Supreme Court to hear his challenge to the $5 million judgment, but the court has not yet decided. In that case, Trump has said the trial judge made mistakes by allowing two other women to testify about alleged sexual assaults by Trump and by allowing Trump’s hot mic comments to Access Hollywood to be played in court.

In the current case, Trump argued the Justice Department should have been substituted for him as a defendant because he made the statements within the scope of his duties as president in response to questions by reporters. The Justice Department can’t be sued for defamation so it would have ended the litigation.

In September, the panel of appeals court judges rejected those arguments finding that Trump waived his right to claim immunity and that the Supreme Court 2024 decision on immunity didn’t alter its view.

In Wednesday’s decision, three of the appeals court judges disagreed with the majority and said they would have reheard the case.

“Whatever one thinks about the merits of Trump v. United States, everyone agrees that it represents a significant legal development,” the three judges wrote in a 54-page dissenting opinion. “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.”

Denny Chin, a senior circuit judge, wrote that the majority got it right.

“The dissent goes further than either of the filed petitions, challenging rulings in our decisions, as well as prior decisions of this Court, that neither Trump nor the Government contests in their petitions for rehearing. En banc review of these issues, which were not raised by the petitioning parties, was properly denied,” Chin wrote.

The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.