NEW YORK — Legal representatives for former President Donald Trump have filed a motion with a federal appeals court in New York requesting a temporary halt to an $83 million defamation judgment awarded to longtime columnist E. Jean Carroll.
Attorney Justin D. Smith submitted the request to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday, asking the court to pause its ruling that upheld the massive award. This would prevent Trump from having to make the payment while pursuing an appeal to the Supreme Court.
Carroll received the $83 million judgment from a Manhattan jury in January 2024. Previously, in May 2023, a separate jury had awarded her $5 million after determining that Trump had sexually assaulted her in a dressing room at a high-end Manhattan department store in 1996, then defamed her following her public account of the incident in 2019.
The former president has consistently and forcefully rejected any claims of sexual assault against Carroll, stating he never knew her. He has also repeatedly alleged that her accusations are politically motivated or intended to boost sales of her book.
According to court documents submitted to the 2nd Circuit, Smith indicated that Carroll’s legal representation would not object to delaying the payment, provided Trump increases his posted bond by $7.4 million to account for potential interest that might accumulate during a Supreme Court review process.
Roberta Kaplan, Carroll’s attorney, has not yet provided a response to requests for comment.
Smith argued to the appeals court that Trump would face “irreparable harm” if required to pay immediately, citing Carroll’s public statements about her intention to donate the award money. This would make it impossible for the former president to recover the funds should the Supreme Court overturn the decision.
The attorney stated there was a “reasonable probability” the nation’s highest court would agree to hear the appeal, particularly given Trump’s claims of absolute immunity regarding statements made during his presidency.
To bolster his argument, Smith referenced dissenting opinions from three 2nd Circuit judges who opposed a recent decision to reject a full court review of the case. This left intact a three-judge panel’s September ruling that supported the verdict.
Smith expressed confidence that there was “at least a fair prospect that the Supreme Court will reverse the Panel.”
