The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday refused to grant an en banc rehearing of former President Donald Trump's challenge to an $83.3 million defamation verdict awarded to magazine writer E. Jean Carroll, clearing the way for Trump to petition the Supreme Court on presidential immunity grounds.
The decision, which came after a jury found Trump liable for defaming Carroll over a 1996 encounter, means Trump must now turn to the nation's highest court to argue that statements made while in office should shield him from liability. A three-judge panel of the 2nd Circuit had previously upheld the verdict, and Wednesday's denial of a full-court review solidifies that ruling.
Carroll, a longtime advice columnist, originally sued Trump in 2019 after he denied her allegation of sexual assault and called her claim a hoax. In 2023, a jury found Trump sexually abused Carroll in a Manhattan department store dressing room and defamed her, awarding $5 million. A separate jury in 2024 added $83.3 million for further defamatory statements Trump made while president.
Trump's legal team had sought to substitute the United States as the defendant, arguing that his remarks fell within the scope of his official duties. If the Justice Department had been substituted, the case would have been dismissed because the federal government cannot be sued for defamation. The 2nd Circuit rejected that move, noting the request came 15 months after the trial and final judgment.
“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,” Circuit Judge Denny Chin wrote for the majority. “The court appropriately declined to convene en banc to revisit this issue.”
Five judges voted against rehearing the case before the full bench, while three dissented. Among the dissenters were Circuit Judges Steven J. Menashi, Michael H. Park, and Chief Judge Debra Ann Livingston, who argued that the Supreme Court's recent immunity ruling in Trump v. United States warranted a fresh look. “Whatever one thinks about the merits of Trump v. United States, everyone agrees that it represents a significant legal development,” they wrote. “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.”
Carroll's attorney, Robert Kaplan, welcomed the decision. “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,” Kaplan said in a statement. “E. Jean Carroll is eager for this case, originally filed in 2019, to be over so that she can finally obtain justice.”
The ruling comes as Trump continues to face multiple legal battles, including ongoing appeals in other defamation and immunity cases. The Supreme Court has not yet decided whether to hear Trump's related appeal in the $5 million verdict. Meanwhile, public attention on Trump's legal troubles remains high, with a recent poll showing that nearly 6 in 10 Americans actively avoid news about the former president.
Legal experts say the 2nd Circuit's decision underscores the difficulty of invoking presidential immunity after a trial has concluded. The case now moves to the Supreme Court, where Trump's team will argue that the Constitution protects former presidents from civil liability for official acts—a claim that has divided lower courts and may ultimately shape the limits of executive power.
