President Donald Trump has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the 3.3 million defamation judgment awarded to writer E. Jean Carroll, arguing that the landmark verdict violated his First Amendment rights and should be struck down. The petition, filed Tuesday, represents the latest chapter in a long-running legal battle that has already produced two separate jury verdicts against the president.
Carroll, a longtime advice columnist, accused Trump of raping her in a Bergdorf Goodman department store dressing room in the mid-1990s. Trump has consistently denied the allegations, calling them politically motivated fabrications. In 2023, a federal jury found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation, awarding Carroll million in damages. In a second trial in 2024, a separate jury awarded Carroll 3.3 million in a defamation case stemming from Trump’s public statements denying the allegations after leaving office.
The president’s legal team argues in their Supreme Court petition that the 3.3 million award is excessive and that the trial judge improperly allowed the case to proceed despite what they describe as Trump’s constitutionally protected speech. The petition contends that Trump’s statements about Carroll were “opinions” about a matter of public concern and therefore protected under the First Amendment.
Carroll’s legal team has dismissed the petition as another delay tactic by a president who has spent years fighting the allegations through the courts. They argue that the jury’s verdict was based on overwhelming evidence that Trump’s statements were knowingly false and made with actual malice, the legal standard required for defamation claims involving public figures.
Trump’s lawyers point to a separate ruling by a federal appeals court earlier this year that threw out a different defamation verdict against the president, arguing that the same legal principles should apply in Carroll’s case. That ruling, involving a different plaintiff, found that certain statements made by a sitting president fell within the scope of official duties and were therefore immune from civil suit.
Legal scholars have offered mixed assessments of the petition’s chances. Some argue that the Supreme Court may be reluctant to wade into defamation law, while others note that the justices have shown increasing interest in narrowing the scope of defamation claims in recent terms.
Trump has already paid Carroll more than million from the first jury verdict, which is under separate appeal. The 3.3 million judgment, if upheld, would represent one of the largest defamation awards in American history against a sitting or former president.
The Supreme Court has not yet indicated whether it will take up the case. A decision on whether to hear the appeal is not expected for several months. If the Court declines to hear the case, the 3.3 million judgment will stand, and Trump would be required to pay the full amount or post a bond while pursuing further appeals.
Carroll, in a statement released through her attorneys, said she remains confident that the verdict will withstand Supreme Court scrutiny. “No one is above the law, not even a president,” her statement read.