How have courts treated presidential immunity claims in civil sexual misconduct and discovery disputes involving Trump?

1. How courts have treated presidential immunity in the Carroll civil suits: judgments sustained despite immunity claims

Federal and state courts have not permitted broad presidential‑immunity defenses to automatically erase civil liability in E. Jean Carroll’s lawsuits: a jury found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation in May 2023, awarding $5 million, and appellate review through 2024–2025 rejected the contention that presidential immunity invalidated those verdicts; Trump continued to argue immunity on appeal but courts have declined to treat presidential status as a get‑out‑of‑civil‑liability card in this record ^[1]. The Department of Justice at one point argued immunity under statutes like the Westfall Act, but Carroll’s team and judges have pushed back, and the Second Circuit upheld the $5 million judgment on appeal at least through June 13, 2025 ^{[4] [5]}.

2. The Supreme Court’s criminal‑immunity ruling and its spillover into civil litigation and discovery

The Supreme Court in Trump v. United States (July 2024) fashioned a three‑tiered immunity framework for criminal prosecution—absolute immunity for core presidential functions, presumptive immunity for other official acts, and no immunity for unofficial acts—which has reshaped arguments in both criminal and civil contexts; lower courts have had to assess whether particular acts fall inside those categories and whether the decision affects evidence and charges ^{[2] [3]}. Reporters and judges have grappled with how far that criminal immunity logic reaches into civil proceedings and discovery disputes; some judges have treated the ruling as relevant but not dispositive for civil liability or for vitiating already‑entered civil judgments ^{[2] [6]}.

3. Discovery and depositions: courts forcing or permitting questioning despite immunity theories

Courts have required Trump to sit for depositions and provide testimony in defamation and sexual‑misconduct suits despite his counsel’s efforts to claim immunity while he was president and after, with New York courts expressly rejecting an argument that the Constitution made him immune from state lawsuits and ordering questioning under oath ^{[4] [1]}. When Carroll’s suits returned after Trump left office, New York appellate rulings instructed that depositions and other discovery should proceed, and federal judges have overseen the process rather than allowing blanket immunity to block it ^{[4] [1]}.

4. Appellate posture and continued litigation: immunity claims preserved but largely unsuccessful so far

Trump has repeatedly raised presidential‑immunity arguments in appeals and post‑trial motions, and his legal team sought review up to the Supreme Court in related matters ^{[1] [7]}. While courts have entertained these arguments — and the DOJ at times intervened on immunity grounds — the appellate record in the Carroll litigation through mid‑2025 shows courts denying relief that would erase the civil verdict or relieve him of the damages ordered ^{[1] [4]}. Trump asked the Supreme Court to take up the appeal of the Carroll verdict, signaling that immunity arguments remain a live, strategic part of litigation strategy ^[7].

5. Competing viewpoints and legal stakes: criminal vs. civil immunity, waiver, and scope

Legal commentators and advocates diverge on whether the Supreme Court’s criminal‑immunity framework should expand to bar civil suits or discovery; some defendants argue that official‑act determinations and doctrines like the Westfall Act can immunize certain statements, while plaintiffs and several courts maintain that immunity cannot be used to wipe out private‑conduct liability or to block evidence demonstrating a pattern of misconduct ^{[5] [1] [2]}. The DOJ’s prior invocation of the Westfall Act in related litigation shows an institutional posture favoring immunity in some circumstances, but courts have not uniformly accepted that position in the Carroll cases ^{[5] [1]}.

6. Limits of available reporting and what’s not covered

Available sources do not mention all trial‑court rulings on every discovery dispute in every jurisdiction involving Trump, nor do they provide full transcripts of immunity hearings; detailed lower‑court reasoning on the interaction between the Supreme Court’s 2024 immunity framework and specific discovery orders is only summarized in these materials rather than exhaustively reported ^{[2] [1]}. Readers should note that while the Supreme Court’s framework has reshaped arguments, the cited reporting shows courts have, in the Carroll matters, allowed civil liability and discovery to proceed despite repeated immunity claims ^{[1] [4]}.