What legal arguments did Trump's lawyers raise on appeal in the Carroll cases and how have appellate courts responded?
Executive summary
Donald Trump’s appellate strategy in the E. Jean Carroll litigation pressed three main threads—evidentiary errors at trial, judges’ purported misapplication of presidential-immunity and Westfall Act questions, and requests to reduce or vacate damages—claims the appellate courts in the Second Circuit have repeatedly rejected or deemed harmless, and which Trump has advanced up to petitions for en banc rehearing and Supreme Court review [1] [2] [3]. Appellate panels have generally upheld trial rulings, concluded any potential evidentiary missteps were nonprejudicial, and declined to disturb the multi‑million‑dollar judgments against him [1] [4] [5].
1. Trump’s evidentiary‑error argument: contested witnesses and the “Access Hollywood” tape
One pillar of Trump’s appeals was that the trial judge erred by admitting testimony from two other women who alleged past sexual assaults by Trump and by allowing a 2005 recording—often called the “Access Hollywood” tape—in which Trump described nonconsensual grabbing and kissing, material the defense said unfairly prejudiced the jury [1] [6]. The Second Circuit disagreed, holding that the district court’s evidentiary rulings fell “within the range of permissible decisions” and that, even if some rulings were imperfect, any error was harmless and did not change the outcome of the jury’s $5 million finding in the Carroll I trial [1] [4]. Carroll’s lawyers echo that the appellate court found the evidence did not materially affect the verdict [4] [7].
2. Presidential immunity and the Westfall Act: a statutory and timing fight
Another central appellate thrust contested whether Trump’s public statements about Carroll made while president were covered by federal immunity or substitution under the Westfall Act—an argument that asked courts to treat his statements as within the scope of official employment so the United States could be substituted as defendant [8] [9]. The Second Circuit has navigated these issues in separate rulings: at times it reversed and certified scope questions to the D.C. courts and, in other opinions, found that presidential immunity can be waived if not timely asserted and that Trump had not preserved the defense in his initial answer [8] [2]. Appellate judges ultimately concluded Trump “failed to identify any grounds” to revisit immunity in at least one rehearing request and refused to vacate the judgments on that basis [10] [11].
3. Attacking damages and asking for retrial or reduction
Following the $5 million verdict and a later $83.3 million defamation award, Trump’s lawyers sought either dramatic reductions or new trials on damages, arguing the record did not support the magnitude of awards and that procedural rulings tainted the damage phase [3] [4]. Appellate panels, however, described the damages as “fair and reasonable” under the unique facts of the case and declined to upset the awards, with the Second Circuit issuing a detailed opinion affirming the larger $83.3 million judgment and denying petitions for full‑court rehearing [10] [5].
4. Supreme Court petitions and claims of conflicting appellate law
When appeals at the Second Circuit failed, Trump escalated to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Second Circuit’s evidentiary rulings conflicted with other federal appellate courts’ approaches and that intervening developments in law (including other Supreme Court decisions) warranted review—claims framed publicly as resistance to “liberal lawfare” by his spokespeople [6] [12]. Carroll’s team and multiple appellate opinions counter that the Second Circuit explicitly found any evidentiary error nonprejudicial, diminishing the practical need for Supreme Court intervention and urging denial of review [4] [7].
5. How appellate courts have responded, and what’s left
Appellate courts have been largely unsympathetic to Trump’s procedural and evidentiary arguments: panels affirmed trial rulings, found immunity arguments waived or inadequately supported, and upheld the damage awards as proportionate to the record [1] [2] [10]. The Second Circuit denied en banc rehearing, and Trump proceeded to seek Supreme Court review—an avenue that the high court accepts in only a sliver of petitions and where Carroll’s lawyers argue there is no meaningful conflict to resolve because the court already deemed any errors harmless [3] [7].
6. Competing narratives and stakeholders’ incentives
Public statements from both sides are infused with larger political frames—Trump’s team casts the appeals as defense of presidential prerogatives and resistance to partisan prosecutions, while Carroll’s advocates emphasize accountability for personal conduct and the courts’ role in protecting victims; those rhetoric choices influence litigation posture and public perception but do not substitute for the appellate texts, which focus on admissibility, waiver, and prejudice analyses [12] [4]. Reporting shows appellate judges grounded their rulings in established standards—harmless‑error review, preservation of defenses, and application of Westfall/ immunity doctrines—rather than political argumentation [1] [2].