The Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday rejected President Trump's bid for a full-court rehearing of his challenge to an $83.3 million defamation verdict won by magazine columnist E. Jean Carroll, a decision that now clears a path to the Supreme Court. A majority of the 12-member appellate panel voted against convening an en banc hearing, with three judges dissenting.
The ruling keeps intact a 2024 jury award that Trump has fought to overturn by arguing his statements about Carroll were made in his official capacity as president, and that the United States government, not Trump personally, should bear the consequences. Had that substitution succeeded, the case would have been dismissed outright, because the federal government cannot be sued for defamation.
Trump's legal team made clear it views the decision as another chapter in what it calls politically motivated litigation. The case now heads toward a potential Supreme Court appeal on the question of presidential immunity.
U.S. Circuit Judge Denny Chin, writing for the majority, framed the issue in blunt procedural terms. As The Hill reported, Chin wrote:
"The fact of the matter is that no other defendant would be permitted to move to substitute the United States in his place, 15 months after trial and the entry of judgment against him."
Chin added that the court "appropriately declined to convene en banc to revisit this issue." The timing argument is notable: Trump attempted the substitution more than a year after the $83 million ruling came down.
But the three dissenting judges, Circuit Court Judges Steven J. Menashi and Michael H. Park, both Trump appointees, and Chief Judge Debra Ann Livingston, a George W. Bush appointee, offered a sharply different view. They argued the case raises constitutional questions that deserve full-bench consideration, particularly in light of the Supreme Court's evolving doctrine on presidential immunity.
The dissenters wrote:
"Whatever one thinks about the merits of Trump v. United States, everyone agrees that it represents a significant legal development. I would rehear the case en banc to bring our case law about the scope of presidential duties and immunity into conformity with decisions of the Supreme Court and to resolve these questions of exceptional importance in line with the constitutional separation of powers and normal judicial practice."
That dissent frames the stakes clearly. If the Supreme Court's own immunity rulings have shifted the legal landscape, lower courts arguably owe litigants the chance to have their claims reconsidered under the new framework. The majority's refusal to do so here leaves that question unresolved, at least until the high court weighs in.
The Carroll litigation has stretched across years and two separate jury verdicts. Carroll first filed suit in 2019. A jury later awarded her $5 million after finding that Trump had sexually abused her in a department store dressing room in 1996 and subsequently defamed her. Trump has appealed that $5 million decision to the Supreme Court, which has not yet decided whether to take it up.
The second and far larger verdict, $83 million, came in 2024 and centered on defamation. Trump sought to challenge that award by arguing the statements at issue were made while he served as president, and therefore the United States should be substituted as the defendant. The legal logic is straightforward: if Trump was acting in his official capacity, the Westfall Act could shield him personally and shift liability to the federal government. And since the government enjoys sovereign immunity from defamation claims, the case would collapse.
The appeals court, however, said Trump waited too long to make that move, 15 months after trial and judgment, in Chin's telling. That procedural barrier proved decisive for the majority, regardless of the underlying immunity question.
In other recent legal battles involving the president, a judge blocked Fani Willis from a fee dispute as Trump sought $16.8 million in legal costs, a reminder that the president faces a web of concurrent legal proceedings, each with its own procedural complexities.
Carroll's attorney, Roberta Kaplan, told ABC she was gratified by the outcome. In a Wednesday statement, Kaplan said:
"We are pleased that the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has denied President Trump's petition for an en banc hearing in connection with the verdict from the second jury trial."
Kaplan added that Carroll "is eager for this case, originally filed in 2019, to be over so that she can finally obtain justice." Seven years of litigation will do that.
Trump's legal team struck a different tone entirely. A spokesman called the proceedings "Liberal Lawfare" and issued a lengthy statement, as NBC News reported:
"The American People stand with President Trump in demanding an immediate end to the unlawful, radical weaponization of our justice system, and a swift dismissal of all of the Witch Hunts, including the illegal, Democrat-funded travesty of the Carroll Hoaxes, the defense of which the Attorney General has determined is legally required to be taken over by the Department of Justice because Carroll based her false claims on the President's official acts."
That statement contains a significant claim: that the Attorney General has already determined the Department of Justice is legally required to take over Trump's defense in the Carroll matter. If true, it suggests the executive branch's own legal apparatus views Trump's statements as official presidential conduct, a position that could carry weight if the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case.
Wednesday's ruling does not end the fight. It shifts the battlefield. Trump can now petition the Supreme Court to hear his presidential immunity argument in the $83.3 million case. He has already filed a separate appeal on the earlier $5 million verdict. The high court has not yet signaled whether it will take either case.
The dissenting judges on the Second Circuit gave Trump's legal team ammunition for that petition. By arguing that the full bench should have reconsidered the case in light of the Supreme Court's own immunity decisions, the dissenters effectively flagged a circuit-level conflict, exactly the kind of issue the justices sometimes agree to resolve.
The broader judicial landscape around Trump-related cases continues to shift in unpredictable directions. Just recently, the D.C. Circuit rebuked Judge Boasberg and ordered an end to a contempt probe tied to Trump administration deportation flights, a case where an appeals court sided firmly with executive authority.
Meanwhile, the political fallout from judicial confrontations with the Trump administration has intensified. Senator Schmitt demanded the House impeach Judge Boasberg after that same ruling, illustrating how deeply the judiciary has become entangled in partisan conflict.
The core tension in Wednesday's decision is whether the majority reached the right result for the wrong reasons. Judge Chin's opinion rests heavily on the procedural argument, Trump waited too long to seek substitution of the United States. That may be technically sound. But the dissenters argue that the Supreme Court's immunity rulings changed the legal framework in ways the Second Circuit has not yet fully absorbed.
If the Supreme Court's own precedent on presidential immunity has evolved, then a lower court's refusal to reconsider a case in light of that evolution starts to look less like procedural discipline and more like avoidance. The three dissenting judges said as much, calling the questions at stake ones "of exceptional importance" involving "the constitutional separation of powers."
For Trump's legal team, the path forward is narrow but not closed. A Supreme Court grant of certiorari would reopen the entire immunity question on a far larger stage. And the Attorney General's reported determination that the Justice Department should take over the defense, if it holds, could reshape the case entirely.
In other corners of the federal judiciary, the Supreme Court recently let Texas keep its congressional map in a 6-3 redistricting ruling, a decision that showed the current Court's willingness to side with state authority against progressive legal challenges. Whether that same instinct extends to presidential immunity in a civil defamation case remains an open question.
The Justice Department's role adds another layer. Trump's spokesman asserted that the Attorney General has concluded the government is "legally required" to assume the defense. If the DOJ formally moves to intervene or substitute at the Supreme Court level, it would transform the case from a private defamation dispute into a separation-of-powers showdown between the judiciary and the executive branch.
Other Trump-related legal proceedings continue to generate headlines across the federal system. The Justice Department recently indicted former FBI Director James Comey a second time, underscoring the extent to which legal and political battles surrounding Trump have become a permanent fixture of American governance.
The $83.3 million verdict stands, for now. Trump's team has signaled it will seek Supreme Court review. The three-judge dissent gives the petition a stronger foundation than it might otherwise have. And the Attorney General's reported position on DOJ substitution could add executive-branch weight to the appeal.
Carroll's side wants finality after seven years of litigation. Trump's side wants the immunity question settled on constitutional grounds, not dismissed on a procedural technicality.
When three federal judges, including the chief judge of the circuit, say a case raises questions "of exceptional importance" to the separation of powers, the Supreme Court ought to listen. Whether it will is another matter. But the dissenters made the argument the majority refused to hear, and that argument isn't going away.
