Lead: On Sept. 8, 2025, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Manhattan unanimously affirmed an $83.3 million jury award to writer E. Jean Carroll for defamation after she accused Donald Trump of a decades-old sexual assault. The court rejected the argument that the Supreme Court’s recent expansion of presidential immunity shields the president from civil liability for false statements. A large share of the award—about $65 million—was punitive damages based on the jury’s finding of malice. Mr. Trump has posted a $91.6 million bond pending appeal; Ms. Carroll has not yet received the award.
Key Takeaways
- The Second Circuit issued a unanimous, unsigned opinion on Sept. 8, 2025, affirming a jury’s $83.3 million defamation verdict in favor of E. Jean Carroll.
- The jury awarded approximately $65 million in punitive damages after finding Mr. Trump acted with malice in his public attacks on Ms. Carroll.
- The panel ruled that the Supreme Court’s ruling extending presidential immunity for official acts did not bar Carroll’s defamation claim.
- Mr. Trump has posted a $91.6 million bond to cover the judgment plus interest; he has also lodged about $5.6 million in cash related to a separate $5 million verdict from 2023.
- A 2023 jury separately found Mr. Trump liable for sexually abusing Ms. Carroll and awarded $5 million for that claim and related defamation; that earlier verdict was previously affirmed on appeal.
- The three judges on the panel were Judges Denny Chin, Sarah A. L. Merriam and Maria Araújo Kahn.
- The ruling leaves open further appellate review: the court did not decide whether the case could be heard by the full Second Circuit or the Supreme Court.
Background
E. Jean Carroll accused Donald Trump of sexually assaulting her in a Manhattan department store in the mid-1990s. She publicly named him in 2019; Mr. Trump denied the allegation and made multiple public statements attacking her credibility in subsequent years. Carroll filed defamation suits based on those statements; one trial in 2023 produced a $5 million award for sexual abuse and defamation tied to post-presidency comments, and jurors found she had been sexually abused though not raped.
In 2024 and 2025 litigation, Carroll sought damages for defamatory statements linked to Mr. Trump’s denials and attacks in 2019 and beyond. The legal question at the appellate level focused in part on presidential immunity: the Supreme Court had recently limited civil liability for official acts by presidents, and Mr. Trump’s team argued that immunity should shield him here. The Second Circuit panel disagreed, distinguishing speech and misconduct treated as private or outside the scope of official duties.
Main Event
On Sept. 8, 2025, the Second Circuit issued a 70-page unsigned opinion affirming the larger defamation award. The panel concluded that the immunity doctrine announced by the Supreme Court did not apply to Carroll’s defamation claims arising from statements Mr. Trump made while he was a private citizen or that were not part of official presidential acts. The court wrote that the jury’s findings, including malice, supported punitive damages aimed at punishment and deterrence.
The appellate ruling recited the procedural history: juries previously resolved factual disputes, and a December appellate decision had already sustained the separate 2023 verdict. The judges emphasized precedents separating core official acts from personal conduct and noted the factual record showing repeated, publicized attacks on Carroll across social media and public appearances. The opinion was unanimous and authored by a three-judge panel appointed by different presidents.
Practically, the affirmation means the $83.3 million award stands unless a higher court intervenes or the panel’s mandate is stayed or altered by further proceedings. Mr. Trump has a bond of $91.6 million on file, which exceeds the jury award to cover interest and other accruals. Carroll still awaits receipt of the damages while appeals remain possible.
Analysis & Implications
The ruling clarifies—at least within the Second Circuit—that broad assertions of presidential immunity do not automatically shield a former or sitting president from civil liability for statements judged to be defamatory and made outside the scope of official duties. That distinction could constrain future immunity claims, particularly where plaintiffs show defamatory intent or malice. The decision therefore sets a benchmark for how courts balance official-immunity doctrines against traditional tort accountability.
Politically and legally, the opinion has multiple downstream effects. For victims of alleged misconduct, it signals that civil remedies remain available even against high-profile public figures, subject to the facts the jury finds. For officeholders and candidates, it underscores risks attached to repeated, public attacks on private individuals: juries can assess punitive damages when they find malice. The decision may shape how defendants tailor speech during campaign events, press conferences and social media.
Economically, the affirmed award and the bond posted to secure it create tangible stakes for a defendant with multiple pending civil and criminal matters. Large judgment bonds affect liquidity and financial maneuvering; they also alter calculations about settlement, further appeals and resource allocation. For courts, the case raises procedural questions about handling overlapping appeals and the interplay between separate verdicts from different trials.
Comparison & Data
| Year | Case | Jury Award | Punitive Portion | Security Posted |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | Sexual abuse & defamation (Bergdorf Goodman) | $5,000,000 | Included in award | About $5.6M cash posted (appeal) |
| 2025 | Defamation related to 2019 statements | $83,300,000 | ~$65,000,000 | $91,600,000 bond posted |
The table places the 2025 appellate affirmation alongside the earlier 2023 verdict to show scale and security measures. The $83.3 million award relies heavily on punitive damages, distinguishing it from the earlier $5 million figure tied to sexual-abuse and defamation findings. The bonds and cash posted reflect appellate practice intended to secure payment while appeals proceed and to satisfy courts’ rules on judgment stays.
Reactions & Quotes
Trump’s legal team issued a brief public statement framing the case as politically motivated and suggesting the American people oppose what they called the politicization of the justice system. That statement did not specify whether the defense would seek rehearing by the full Second Circuit or immediate review by the Supreme Court, leaving the next procedural steps uncertain.
“The American people stand with President Trump and demand an immediate end to the political weaponization of our justice system,”
Spokesman for Trump legal team
Carroll’s attorney responded that her client seeks finality and enforcement of the jury’s awards, signaling readiness to press collection if appeals are exhausted. Her statement emphasized victims’ access to remedies through civil courts and did not address criminal proceedings, which are separate from these civil judgments.
“We look forward to an end to the appellate process so that justice will finally be done,”
Roberta Kaplan, Carroll attorney
Observers in the legal community noted the decision’s narrower holding: it focused on the immunity doctrine’s limits rather than reworking defamation law. They cautioned that the Supreme Court could still revisit the immunity question, and any such review would have broader constitutional implications.
Unconfirmed
- Whether Mr. Trump will file for rehearing en banc in the Second Circuit or immediately seek Supreme Court review of the $83.3 million affirmation remains unannounced.
- The timing and mechanics for payment or collection of the affirmed judgment are unresolved while appeals and potential stays remain possible.
Bottom Line
The Second Circuit’s Sept. 8, 2025 ruling underscores that, within this federal appeals circuit, presidential immunity does not automatically bar defamation claims tied to non-official conduct or repeatedly publicized personal attacks. The decision preserves a large punitive award intended to punish and deter conduct the jury found malicious, and it maintains substantial financial pressure through the bond posted to secure the judgment.
While the affirmation narrows the scope of immunity claims in defamation contexts, the case is likely not over: additional appeals could reach the full Second Circuit or the Supreme Court, potentially producing a national precedent on immunity and speech by officeholders. For plaintiffs, defendants and courts, the ruling is a notable marker in the evolving boundary between official capacity protections and accountability in private tort claims.
Sources
- The New York Times (news coverage)