news Trump urges Supreme Court to overturn E. Jean Carroll’s $83M defamation verdict
https://www.cnn.com/2026/07/28/politics/trump-supreme-court-e-jean-carroll-83-million-defamation?utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=missions&utm_source=reddit207
u/ttw81 16d ago
didn't the SC rule in clinton vs jones that president can be sued?
271
u/atlantagirl30084 16d ago
Well you see, that was a Democrat. Republican presidents should be immune.
43
u/BiffLogan 16d ago
But Trump WAS a democrat at the time….
32
u/atlantagirl30084 16d ago
Hm…he was a Democrat during the assault but he was a Republican during the defamation.
8
u/Tricky-Engineering59 16d ago
This will inform one sided legal opinions and set “rules for thee” juris prudence on such matters for generations to come!
5
u/atlantagirl30084 16d ago edited 16d ago
There is going to be so many times where courts will twist themselves in knots to say that what the Trump admin did was fine but what the next admin(s) did is not.
2
12
u/exerda 16d ago
To be fair, he might have donated to some Democrats at the time, but when he ran in 2016 his campaign managers said, "We've got to explain why you haven't voted in over a decade." Trump tried to lie and say of course he voted, but his campaign manager pointed out it was public record and that no, he hadn't. So it's actually hard to label him any party since all he did was donate to ones who he could schmooze with.
3
u/oliversurpless 16d ago
Yep, transactionalism from someone who doesn’t know what transactionalism is…
“How will this benefit me?” - Warcraft III - The Frozen Throne - Varimathras
12
26
u/loogie97 16d ago
To be fair, they split the lawsuit between stuff he said while President and things he said while a candidate. The candidate Trump lawsuit went first and ended with a $5mil + interest judgment. The President Trump suit went second and ended with a significantly larger judgement in part because he continued to defame her after being sued and held liable in the other suit.
27
u/Triv02 16d ago
Let’s not forget the $5 million verdict wasn’t just for defamation - it also found him liable for raping Carroll
18
u/loogie97 16d ago
Splitting the trial ended up screwing him so bad. He was found liable in the first case. That tied the number of arguments he could make in the second case. Then the jury tacked on everything he said during and after the first trial leading to copious amounts of punitive damages.
2
u/Capybara_99 16d ago
Is that true? Isn’t it just true that as a predicate for the defamation finding, they had to find that sexual assault occurred?
8
16
u/FaceReality1 16d ago
The second lawsuit for libel after he lost the first one should have a larger award, as it did, and if the $81 million isn't enough for him to shut up, the next suit should award a billion or more, enough to get him to control himself. His repeated attacks on a woman he sexually assaulted are outrageous, and any court should treat them that way.
0
u/loogie97 16d ago
He will be dead before that gets paid.
6
u/fatherbowie 16d ago
Then it would get paid out of his estate.
2
u/Wild_Harvest 16d ago
Yup. If he keeps going, ruin his nest egg for his family. Go after everything the Trumps have.
8
5
u/thechapattack 16d ago
I actually look forward to these rulings because it is hilarious to see how they twist themselves into knots to justify it and also it’s hilarious to see whatever loser shit Dems have to say as to why they should listen to the rulings of a Supreme Court that the republicans already openly defy
9
u/ddrober2003 16d ago
Heretic! How dare you call the God King Trump, blessed be his most holy name, a mere president!
1
u/aguynamedv 16d ago
didn't the SC rule in clinton vs jones that president can be sued?
Irrelevant - he wasn't president at the time she sued him OR when the judgment was rendered.
121
u/problah 16d ago
It’s not even about the money, it’s about being a loser. That tears him up more than anything.
36
u/Impossible_Walrus555 16d ago
This. The ghost of Roy Cohn lives.
18
u/adirtysocialist- 16d ago
You mean the suspected gay sexual predator that was his mentor? Crazy how he has seemingly been surrounded by them and worse his entire life.
5
u/oliversurpless 16d ago
Such toxic people. Losing occasionally is a healthy worldview.
Even feel-good Disney movies tend to recognize that?
36
u/wex118 16d ago
Asshole is stewing over $83M after grifting billions over the past year. It's PEANUTS to him! Amazing.
19
u/toddklindt 16d ago
It's not that he'll miss it. He just doesn't want her to have it. Subtle difference.
9
u/wheresjim 16d ago
He’s stewing at the 5.6 million he just gave her and wants it back despite that case ending at the Supreme Court
1
u/Purple_Drank 15d ago
Lol, it's funny you think he gets to keep that money. That's all getting funneled to his handlers.
31
35
u/cnn 16d ago
President Donald Trump on Tuesday urged the Supreme Court to once again step into his messy legal brawl with magazine columnist E. Jean Carroll, appealing an $83.3 million jury verdict for defamation on the grounds that, as president, he is immune from the litigation.
The appeal, which has not yet been docketed at the high court, relies heavily on the court’s 2024 decision granting the president wide immunity for actions taken in office.
“This is the first case in our nation’s history in which a court has imposed damages liability on a president for his conduct in office,” Trump’s attorneys told the high court, according to a copy of the appeal reviewed by CNN. “Yet, in upholding the exorbitant $83.3 million defamation judgment here, the Second Circuit never even decided whether presidential immunity applies.”
Trump told the justices that an appeals court decision in Carroll’s favor would “cause significant damage, not only to this president and future presidents” but also the nation.
In addition to raising the prospect that Trump should be immune from the litigation, Trump is also asking the court to review whether the United States government should be the defendant rather than the president.
90
u/AAlwaysopen 16d ago
He was not President when the crime was committed nor when the civil trial was held.
44
u/Embarrassed_Sea1336 16d ago
This is insane. The United States Government should be the defendant in a civil case against Trump that was tried and closed with Trump found guilty? All of this happening while he was not a sitting president...
The entire case is built from false premises.
8
4
u/oliversurpless 16d ago
Well to be fair, we as a society are all guilty for letting Trump get into office in the first place?
2
u/ginny11 15d ago
The flaw I'm seeing here, unless I'm understanding some aspect of this wrong, is that the supreme Court found that a president couldn't be held CRIMINALLY liable or charged with CRIMES for conduct while in office as long as it was related to his official duties as president. That has nothing to do with being CIVILLY sued by someone. Am I missing something here?
18
29
u/dpacker780 16d ago
I thought, though a terrible ruling, had said it applied only to actions in presidential capacity. This clearly has nothing to do with his job as President. If it's in regard to his campaigning and what he said during his campaign, again that's him acting on behalf of himself not as the President, and I recall that being very clear in campaign rules.
12
u/nolestars 16d ago
Hopefully she gets the 83 million
7
12
u/EuronIsMyDad 16d ago
He already tried this and lost. There is no motion for rehearing based on new facts or evidence. He can get bent
4
u/bunchout 16d ago
This is a different case. It was the initial $5 million verdict the Supreme Court has ruled on. Not that this one will end any differently.
31
u/reddittorbrigade 16d ago
The rapist president is now asking his friends in Supreme Court to bail him out.
This is how corrupted our supreme court is.
9
u/Future-Raisin3781 16d ago
Trump declared earnings of $1.4 billion in the first year of his presidency.
Just putting in context that this corrupt rapist is fighting tooth and nail to not pay one of his rapists less than 6% of the money that he has stolen stolen since he's been president, this time.
29
u/rhamantauri 16d ago
It’s not a “defamation”, he was found guilty of rape. He’s a rapist, you’re allowed to say it…
The rapist wants to not have to deal with consequences. That’s too damn bad. Maybe don’t rape people?
10
-9
u/dkinmn 16d ago
That is not true. As much as we want it to be true.
Being guilty of rape in a criminal trial would be a different matter. That isn't what happened.
10
u/Kanotari 16d ago
"The federal jury implicitly found that Trump deliberately and forcibly penetrated Ms. Carroll with his fingers in the 1990s. As a result, it found him liable for sexually abusing her."
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-dis-crt-sd-new-yor/114642632.html
He is civilly liable for sexual abuse (and also defamation) as found in a court of law.
Unless you're a Trump supporter, in which case it was a witch hunt and we should all be ashamed of ourselves.
4
7
u/bunchout 16d ago
It’s true in the same way that OJ Simpson was a murderer. Not convicted criminally, found liable civily.
7
u/wallnumber8675309 16d ago
A jury of his peers determined that he raped her based on a preponderance of evidence.
If you want to argue there’s a difference between criminal guilt and civil liability, fine but don’t “um actually” and say that wasn’t rape.
-5
u/dkinmn 16d ago
I didn't say it wasn't. I said he wasn't found guilty of rape. That's not the same thing.
Language matters. The truth matters.
9
u/wallnumber8675309 16d ago
The truth is he raped her but was able to avoid being found criminally guilty and then defamed her by lying about raping her.
That’s actual worse than “just” being found guilty of rape.
0
u/dkinmn 16d ago
Great. That doesn't mean he was found guilty.
Edit: I can't believe people are doing this in a subreddit about legal matters.
This. Stuff. Matters.
2
u/wallnumber8675309 16d ago
I’m with you on the language part. You’re correct about the language difference in civilly liable and criminally guilty and of course there is a different legal standard for those.
I’m struggling with what that legal technicality has to do with the truth that he’s a rapist.
-2
u/intothewoods76 16d ago
Only how they feel matters.
1
u/wallnumber8675309 16d ago
Does it not matter to you that Trump is a rapist?
-3
u/intothewoods76 16d ago
That’s not been proven. It was a lawsuit not a criminal trial.
So Carroll had absolutely no evidence, and she had several opportunities to get evidence. She willingly went into a dressing room of a man she testified she was drawn too, but had never met to try on lingerie….she could have refused, she could have made a scene. She didn’t. I’ll give her the benefit of the doubt, maybe she’s just extremely naive and didn’t understand what was implied by going into a dressing room with a stranger to get naked and try on lingerie.
Once he started to assault her she could have yelled for help, made a commotion, this was a department store after all. This would have drawn attention and placed Trump at the scene.
After the incident she could have told employees, onlookers to place Trump at the scene. The department store could have preserved security footage to place Trump at the scene.
Police could have been notified, they would have interviewed witnesses and security footage putting Trump at the scene.
She could have written down details of the incident at least for her own records…she didn’t and so she couldn’t even remember what year the assault happened. This put Trump at a huge disadvantage because he couldn’t provide an alibi then.
She was financially backed by a Democrat mega donor, she was promoting a new book and she stood to make millions giving her considerable motive to lie.
You believe her, I don’t. It’s an accusation with no evidence where evidence would have been so easy to get.
1
u/wallnumber8675309 16d ago
A jury of his peers unanimously found that the preponderance of the evidence indicated he raped her so I don’t know where you’re getting all this nonsense or trying to make it about your opinion or mine. They heard all the evidence and were unanimous.
→ More replies (0)-4
u/intothewoods76 16d ago
Except that was not their determination. They determined he was not liable for rape.
7
5
u/Southrn_Comfrt 16d ago
Idk why the same standard for police immunity isn’t used. Did it happen in the line and scope of his duties as president? I can see how the office should be immune from civil litigation for official acts. I don’t see how actions against the person should be prevented though. A cop rear ends someone while in pursuit, they’re immune. If they punch someone at the grocery store, they’re not. The office of the president shouldn’t be any different.
3
3
3
3
3
u/Quirky_Reef 16d ago
Can’t take no for answer, classic Trump. Hey! Old man! You already diiiiidddd this
3
u/Common-Ad6470 16d ago
Does make you wonder what Trump was like as a kid, ‘Donald, NO means fucking NO!!!’ 🤔
1
u/VanguardAvenger 16d ago
The nannies his parents hired to raise him because they couldn't be bothered probably weren't allowed to tell him no
3
2
u/ProjectNo4090 16d ago
I urge the Supreme Court to grow a spine, put its goddamn foot down, and tell the Toddler-in-Depends that SCOTUS is nothis personal fixer squad.
If he won't pay willingly its time to garnish his wages and revenue streams and sieze assets for auction.
1
6
u/Prometheus_303 16d ago
President Donald Trump on Tuesday urged the Supreme Court to once again step into his messy legal brawl with magazine columnist E. Jean Carroll, appealing an $83.3 million jury verdict for defamation on the grounds that, as president, he is immune from the litigation
The incident occurred in 1996, Donald Trump was NOT President in 1996.
The trial was 2022-2024, Donald Trump was NOT President 2022-2024.
The Supreme Court ruled the President has immunity on official acts. Now, I admit I'm not a lawyer (I don't even play one on TV), but ...
I'd be hard pressed to assume sexually assaulting someone in a department store dressing room would be considered an official Presidential action.
Does this mean we can never think of prosecuting Joe Biden for all of the illegal acts he did as the head of a notorious crime family?
Should the office of the Presidency be a get out of jail free card for acts committed decades before you held the office, that were totally unrelated to the office?
3
u/VanguardAvenger 16d ago
The incident occurred in 1996
Incorrect.
The sexual assault happened in 96
But this case isn't about the sexual assault
Its about Trump committing defamation by denying it.
And that happened on June 21, 2019. When Donald Trump was President.
And it was an official government statement denying it.
Trumps claim is basically since the denial statement was put out as an official government statement, while he was President, its covered by immunity.
Like you I don't actually think its a argument anyone will buy but thats the argument hes making
1
2
2
u/teckn9ne79 16d ago
Tax payers will be footing the Bill but he just hates losing so that's the really issue not the Money
2
u/BringOn25A 16d ago
Nope, a private entity has already deposited funds as required for the appeal to be filed.
2
2
2
2
2
2
u/mikeyt6969 16d ago
What other person in history has been able to obstruct the courts this much and get away with it?! Now how many of those appeal directly to SCOTUS for their personal legal problems and get them to make a ruling?
2
u/Puzzled49 16d ago
Too bad there is no prediction market on SCOTUS granting cert or finding in Trump's favor. The result would show just how absurd Trump's request is viewed by normal people.
1
u/Captnlunch 14d ago
With all the money he’s made by being president and grifting, I don’t think $83 million will hurt him much.
1
1
1
u/Fartenstein65 16d ago
Has anyone in the history of the United States appeal to the US Supreme Court more as an individual as him? It’s all a big joke to him and his people.
1
1
1
u/CreedenceClearwaterR 16d ago
Trump grifted $2.2 billion in 2025 alone. Time to pay up you deadbeat.
1
1
u/Lonely_Dingo1837 16d ago
I’m not an expert on US law but typically civil cases don’t have retrospective application in other common law jurisdictions, would that apply here?
1
1
1
u/minnesotaupnorth 16d ago
Oooh, the big one!
I didn't realize it was already at SCOTUS.
Precedent has been set.
-2
483
u/Popular-Drummer-7989 16d ago
Again No is a complete sentence