Trump petitioned the court to overturn the libel conviction of E. Jean Carroll.

Former U.S. President Donald Trump has asked the Supreme Court to overturn a jury's $83 million defamation verdict against him involving claims made by E. Jean Carroll, a former columnist. The request was submitted on Wednesday by Trump and the Department of Justice, which cited legal protections for government officials under the Westfall Act. This act shields federal employees from civil lawsuits arising from actions taken within their official duties. The lawsuit stems from allegations that Trump defamed Carroll by denying knowledge of her and claiming he would not have sexually assaulted her because she was not his type, and accusing her of wanting to sell her book. Carroll testified before two New York juries that Trump sexually assaulted her in a dressing room at the Bergdorf Goodman department store in Manhattan in 1996. She first publicly detailed these allegations in her memoirs published in 2019. In January 2024, a Manhattan jury awarded Carroll $83 million in damages after finding Trump liable for defamation. Lower courts had previously rejected Trump’s motions to vacate the judgment. A higher court issued a divided ruling, allowing the payment to proceed pending a decision from the Supreme Court. The case comes nearly two years after the Supreme Court recognized broad immunity for former presidents regarding criminal prosecution for acts related to their presidential duties. However, this immunity does not extend to civil cases such as the one involving Carroll. Carroll’s allegations were further supported by a separate trial in 2023, where a jury found Trump liable for sexual misconduct and defamation, awarding her $5 million. Trump has already paid this amount. His legal team argues that statements made during his first presidential term should not subject him to liability, asserting that they were part of his official duties. The Supreme Court’s consideration of the case marks a critical juncture in the ongoing legal battle between Trump and Carroll. The outcome could set a precedent regarding the scope of immunity for former presidents in civil matters. The legal arguments presented by both sides highlight the complexities surrounding the application of the Westfall Act and the interpretation of presidential immunity. While Trump’s legal team emphasizes the protection afforded by the Westfall Act, Carroll’s legal representatives argue that the alleged defamatory statements were not protected under the law. The case has drawn attention from legal experts and the public alike, with many watching closely for the Supreme Court’s decision. The potential impact of the ruling extends beyond this specific case, influencing future legal proceedings involving former government officials. As the Supreme Court deliberates, the focus remains on whether the legal protections intended for government officials can be applied to civil defamation claims. The resolution of this issue will depend on how the justices interpret the boundaries of presidential immunity and the applicability of the Westfall Act in this context.