Which person did Donald Trump sue over a rape accusation and what was the outcome?

1. Dramatic verdicts and a staggering damages figure — what the appeals court affirmed

A federal appeals court unanimously upheld an $83.3 million judgment ordering Trump to pay E. Jean Carroll after juries found he sexually abused and defamed her and acted with malice in his public comments denying her account; the award included roughly $18.3 million for emotional and reputational harm and $65 million in punitive damages, which the court described as justified by “extraordinary and egregious” conduct and not excessive ^{[1] [4]}. The Second Circuit rejected Trump’s presidential immunity defense and agreed with the trial judge that the defendant’s repeated attacks on Carroll were “remarkably high, perhaps unprecedented,” emphasizing that the compensatory and punitive components aimed to address both the personal harm to Carroll and deterrence of similar conduct by a powerful public figure ^[5].

2. The precise legal findings — sexual abuse and defamation, not criminal rape under state law

The legal record distinguishes between civil liability and criminal conviction: juries found Trump liable in civil court for sexual abuse and for defaming Carroll by publicly denying her allegations and making disparaging statements, but the courts clarified that those civil findings do not equate to a New York criminal conviction for rape as defined under state law; appellate opinions and reporting stressed that the terminology matters when describing what juries found and what they did not find under criminal statutes ^{[2] [5]}. That distinction prompted later disputes over how media and public figures described the outcome, producing the separate defamation suit Trump brought against journalists and networks who used the word “rape” in reporting the verdicts ^[2].

3. Trump’s countersuits and the ABC/Stephanopoulos settlement — a separate chapter

After broadcast statements characterized the civil verdict as finding Trump “guilty of rape,” Trump sued ABC News and anchor George Stephanopoulos for repeating that characterization; that lawsuit ended in a settlement in which ABC agreed to pay $15 million to Trump’s presidential library and $1 million in legal fees, according to reporting, while observers noted the settlement did not change the underlying appellate rulings against Trump in Carroll’s suits ^[2]. Media coverage and legal commentary stressed that the settlement addressed an inaccurate public statement about the legal label used by juries under New York law, while leaving intact the separate civil judgments that found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation ^{[1] [2]}.

4. Why this matters — power, precedent, and presidential immunity arguments rejected

The appeals court’s decisions carry broader implications: by refusing to recognize absolute presidential immunity for statements made about Carroll, the courts signaled limits on claims that an officeholder’s status shields them from civil liability for personal, non-official conduct and public attacks on private citizens; the rulings reinforced that high office does not automatically erase legal accountability for defamatory public speech ^{[5] [3]}. Legal analysts and the courts emphasized deterrent rationales for punitive awards when a powerful figure persistently targets an accuser, while critics argued over whether the damages were politically motivated or constitutionally problematic — a debate reflected in the appeals and public reaction ^[4].

5. How reporting and language created new litigation — contested descriptions and reputational stakes

Confusion over terminology—using “rape” versus the civil finding of “sexual abuse”—prompted additional litigation and a settlement because words mattered both legally and reputationally: ABC’s payment addressed a broadcast statement that inaccurately framed the civil verdict as equivalent to a criminal conviction for rape, while the appellate courts separately upheld large civil awards tied to Trump’s statements and conduct toward Carroll ^{[2] [5]}. The record shows two parallel tracks: Carroll’s successful civil suits for abuse and defamation, and Trump’s separate legal response to media descriptions of those outcomes; together they underscore how legal definitions, media phrasing, and public figures’ rhetoric can spawn layered, intertwined lawsuits ^{[1] [2]}.