Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: What was the outcome of E. Jean Carroll's lawsuit against Donald Trump?
Executive Summary
A federal appeals court in the Second Circuit upheld two separate civil judgments holding Donald J. Trump liable to writer E. Jean Carroll: a $5 million award for sexual abuse and an $83.3 million award for defamation tied to his repeated public attacks after Carroll accused him of assault. The court rejected Trump's presidential-immunity defense and described his post-accusation conduct as unusually aggressive, finding the jury's damages awards reasonable in light of the evidence and pattern of statements [1] [2] [3]. The rulings were announced in published opinions dated Sept. 8, 2025, and they preserved the combined monetary judgments while leaving possible narrow procedural or relief questions for further litigation.
1. Why the Court Said “No” to Presidential Immunity—and What That Means for Liability
The appeals court concluded that President Trump could not claim absolute presidential immunity for statements and conduct that a jury found defamatory and that occurred outside the scope of his official duties; the court framed his public denials and attacks on Carroll as personal responses to a private-allegation controversy, not protected official acts. The panel characterized the campaign of statements as “extraordinary and unprecedented,” noting frequency and escalation, and affirmed the trial judge’s view that the defendant’s rhetoric during and leading up to trial increased the seriousness of harms found by the jury [4] [5]. The decision thus reinforces a legal line that separates official presidential acts—which may carry immunity—from purely personal conduct that is subject to ordinary civil liability, at least under the facts presented.
2. The Two Awards: Sexual Abuse Finding and Massive Defamation Damages
Juries had issued two distinct awards: a $5 million verdict tied to the jury’s finding that Trump sexually abused Carroll decades earlier, and a separate $83.3 million award focused on defamation for Trump’s repeated public statements attacking Carroll’s credibility after her allegation surfaced. The appeals court upheld both judgments, with particular attention to the larger defamation award as justified by cumulative conduct—repeated public assaults, social-media amplification, and courtroom behavior that the court said increased harm to Carroll’s reputation [2] [6]. The court’s language that the defendant’s conduct was “remarkably high, perhaps unprecedented” underscores why the damage figures were sustained on appeal.
3. How the Court Evaluated Damages—and Why It Called the Record “Egregious”
On appeal, the court reviewed both compensatory and punitive considerations and concluded the jury’s awards were consistent with evidence showing sustained harassment, repeated false statements, and reputational damage; it found the size of the $83.3 million award reasonable given the intensity and duration of the conduct. The panel emphasized the pattern of attacks that escalated as trial approached and continued during litigation, underscoring the causal link the jury credited between the defendant’s public pronouncements and the harms to Carroll [6] [4]. The appeals court thus treated the damages as responsive to both the factual record and the deterrent role of civil remedies in the face of persistent defamation.
4. What the Ruling Leaves Open: Enforcement, Appeals, and Legal Ripples
The appeals court’s ruling preserved the monetary judgments but did not entirely close related procedural pathways: further appeals on narrow legal issues, enforcement mechanisms for collection, and potential requests for reconsideration or rehearing are available, and settlement remains possible. The decision may also prompt other litigants and courts to re-examine the boundary between official immunity and personal conduct for high-ranking officeholders, and lawyers will likely parse the opinions for standards that apply beyond these specific facts [1] [7]. The practical effect for Carroll is retention of the jury verdicts; the practical effect for precedent is to offer a prominent, recent statement on immunity limits in defamation and related tort claims.
5. Context and Competing Narratives: Media, Politics, and the Court’s Tone
News coverage and statements from stakeholders framed the decision in contrasting ways: advocates for Carroll hailed the vindication and the court’s sharp language about the defendant’s conduct, while allies of Trump emphasized continued litigation options and political framing of the suits. The court itself used unusually pointed language about the defendant’s conduct—a fact media outlets reported on Sept. 8, 2025—while the legal record reflects ordinary appellate review of liability, causation, and damages [3] [8]. Readers should note the dual dimensions of this matter—individual compensation and reputational judgment—and the broader debate about how civil courts address high-profile political figures who engage in intense public counterattacks to personal allegations.