The legal and political world was rocked already this week as a federal appeals court delivered a scathing and consequential ruling against former President Donald Trump, upholding the $83.3 million judgment in the E. Jean Carroll defamation case.
The decision, handed down by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, is not just a personal blow to Trump—it is a landmark moment in the ongoing battle over presidential accountability, coming on the heels of a 2024 Supreme Court decision that dramatically expanded presidential immunity for official acts.
Support fearless, independent journalism that gets into “good trouble, necessary trouble” by holding power accountable.
The E. Jean Carroll Case: A Stinging Defeat
The case at the center of this ruling began when E. Jean Carroll, a respected writer and advice columnist, accused Trump of sexually assaulting her in the 1990s. Trump responded with a barrage of public denials and personal attacks, calling Carroll a liar and impugning her character.
Carroll sued for defamation, and a jury found in her favor, awarding her $5 million in a previous trial. The more recent case, however, focused on statements Trump made while president, resulting in the staggering $83.3 million judgment.
The appeals court’s decision to uphold this award was unequivocal. The judges described Trump’s conduct as "extraordinary and egregious," emphasizing the "remarkably high" degree of harm inflicted on Carroll.
The court detailed how Trump’s repeated and escalating attacks led to Carroll facing relentless harassment, including hundreds of death threats and the loss of her long-standing career.
Trump’s legal team argued that the damages were excessive and that he was protected by presidential immunity for statements made while in office.
The court rejected these arguments, finding that the statements were personal, not official acts, and that Trump had failed to raise the immunity defense in a timely manner.
Why This Ruling Matters: Precedent in the Age of Expansive Presidential Immunity
This blistering ruling carries weight far beyond the personal consequences for Trump. It sets a critical precedent at the Circuit Court level.
The Supreme Court’s ruling has been widely criticized for expanding presidential power and shielding official conduct from criminal prosecution, raising fears that future presidents could act with near-impunity so long as their actions are framed as "official."
Against this backdrop, the 2nd Circuit’s decision in the Carroll case is a vital counterpoint. The court made clear that not all presidential conduct is immune from accountability—especially when it comes to personal misconduct and defamation.
By rejecting Trump’s immunity claims and holding him liable for his personal attacks, the ruling reinforces the principle that the president is not above the law.
It also provides a roadmap for distinguishing between official and unofficial acts, a distinction that will be central to future litigation involving presidential conduct.
In an era when the boundaries of presidential power are being tested as never before, the message from the appeals court is clear: there are still lines that cannot be crossed without consequence.
The Fallout: Legal, Political, and Cultural Reverberations
The immediate impact of the ruling is a devastating financial and reputational blow to Trump. But the broader implications are just as significant. The decision is already being cited as a touchstone in debates over presidential immunity, the rule of law, and the limits of executive power.
For Trump, the ruling is another in a series of legal setbacks that have left his political future clouded by uncertainty and ongoing litigation. For E. Jean Carroll, it is a long-awaited vindication and a powerful affirmation of her right to seek justice.
And for the country, it is a reminder that, even in the face of broad immunity for official acts, the courts can still deliver accountability for personal wrongdoing.
As the dust settles and the ketchup stains are cleaned from the walls, the message from the judiciary is unmistakable: no one, not even a former president, is above the law.
The reverberations from this ruling will be felt in courtrooms and political arenas for years to come.
Join the fight for truth and accountability. By subscribing, you’re powering fearless reporting that holds the powerful to account and uncovers the raw, ugly realities they’d rather hide. Paid subscriptions keep the my articles free for everyone. All subscribers welcomed with open arms.
Raping a woman in a store dressing room will never qualify as an "official duty" of potus. 🤨
I also see it as a rebuke of the unsupreme court, so a two-fer.