NEW YORK — A federal appeals court has declined to allow all of its active judges to review President Donald Trump’s challenge to an $83 million defamation judgment, court officials announced Wednesday.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals voted against holding what’s known as an “en banc” hearing, where the full court would reconsider the massive award to magazine columnist E. Jean Carroll. This development occurs as Trump has separately asked the Supreme Court to review a different $5 million judgment Carroll won after a jury determined he sexually assaulted her at Bergdorf Goodman in 1996 and subsequently made defamatory statements about her.
Trump’s legal representatives have not yet commented on the appeals court’s latest decision.
Carroll’s lawyer, Roberta Kaplan, released a statement saying her client was “eager for this case, originally filed in 2019, to be over so that she can finally obtain justice.”
The full court’s refusal to hear the case follows a September decision by a three-judge panel that upheld the $83 million award. One appeals judge had requested that all Manhattan-based appeals court judges consider the matter.
Wednesday’s vote showed five judges opposed the full court review while three supported it, according to the 2nd Circuit’s announcement.
Appeals Judge Denny Chin noted this marked the fourth occasion the court has refused to have all judges examine an appeal related to this litigation.
Chin referenced how Carroll initially made public allegations in her 2019 book, claiming Trump had sexually assaulted her during the 1990s in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room.
Following those revelations, Trump denied ever meeting Carroll, dismissed her allegations as false, and stated “she’s not my type” during a media interview. Carroll filed her defamation lawsuit in November 2019.
While Trump was absent from a May 2023 trial where jurors concluded he had sexually abused and defamed Carroll, he provided brief testimony during a second proceeding in January 2024 when the jury awarded Carroll the $83 million defamation judgment.
Chin supported the appeals court’s decision to maintain the substantial defamation award.
“The record showed that Trump made multiple statements over many years accusing Carroll of lying for political and financial gain, and suggesting that Carroll was too unattractive for Trump to have sexually assaulted her,” Chin explained in his opinion.
“As a result of Trump’s statements, Carroll was harassed and humiliated, subjected to death threats, and feared for her physical safety for years. And Trump showed no remorse, continuing his attacks against Carroll during and after two federal trials, and even proclaiming two days into the Carroll I trial that he would continue to defame her ‘a thousand times,’” Chin stated.
Three appeals judges — Steven J. Menashi, Michael H. Park and Debra Ann Livingston — supported having the complete 2nd Circuit review the appeal.
In their dissenting opinion authored by Menashi, these judges argued the appeals panel should have allowed the United States government to replace Trump as defendant after the attorney general determined he was operating within his official duties when the allegations emerged.
The dissenting judges also believed Trump should have been permitted to claim presidential immunity protections.
Additionally, they contended Trump deserved a new trial and determined the defamation award amount was “grossly excessive.”
“Put together, these proceedings represent a manifest miscarriage of justice,” Menashi concluded in the dissent.
