Trump’s Legal Team Seeks to Delay $83 Million Defamation Payout
In a significant legal maneuver, former President Donald Trump’s attorney has approached a federal appeals court to pause a substantial defamation award granted to writer E. Jean Carroll. The appeal aims to prevent the immediate payment of an $83 million award while seeking a favorable outcome from the Supreme Court.
Attorney Justin D. Smith filed a request with the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York to halt the enforcement of the award. Smith is advocating that Trump should not be obliged to pay Carroll until the Supreme Court reviews the case.
Back in January 2024, a jury in Manhattan decided in favor of Carroll, awarding her the considerable sum. This follows a previous May 2023 jury decision, which concluded that Trump had sexually assaulted Carroll in a department store in 1996 and defamed her in 2019, leading to a $5 million award as reported earlier.
Trump has persistently denied the allegations of abuse and claims to have no prior knowledge of Carroll. He has accused her of making politically motivated accusations and leveraging them to promote her memoir.
The request for a stay is reportedly not opposed by Carroll’s legal representative, provided that Trump increases the bond by $7.4 million to account for any interest that might accumulate during the Supreme Court’s assessment. This condition was outlined in the court documents submitted by Smith.
While Carroll’s attorney, Roberta Kaplan, has not yet commented on the matter, Smith has emphasized the potential “irreparable harm” to Trump should he be required to pay immediately. Smith argues that Carroll’s stated intention to donate the award would prevent Trump from retrieving the funds if the Supreme Court decision is in his favor.
Smith’s argument hinges on the belief that the Supreme Court may consider Trump’s claim of absolute immunity for statements made during his presidency. In his appeal, Smith references a recent dissent by three 2nd Circuit judges who opposed the court’s ruling to uphold the verdict in a decision from last week. He maintains there is a “reasonable probability” of the Supreme Court overturning the panel’s decision.
