US Appeals Court Affirms $83.3m Defamation Award Against President Trump Over Malicious Remarks on E. Jean Carroll
A United States Court of Appeals has affirmed a jury’s award of $83.3 million in damages against President Donald Trump for defaming American author E. Jean Carroll, whom he was previously found to have sexually assaulted.
The judgment, delivered in January 2024, comprised $65 million in punitive damages after the jury concluded that Trump acted with malice in his repeated public statements about Carroll. It also included $7.3 million in compensatory damages and $11 million earmarked for an online campaign to restore Carroll’s reputation.
The award far exceeded the over $10 million Carroll had initially sought for defamation, prompting audible reactions in the federal courtroom when it was announced.
Trump had earlier been found liable in a separate New York federal civil case for sexually assaulting Carroll. Following that verdict, he used his social media platform, Truth Social, to post a series of derogatory remarks about Carroll, the trial process, and the presiding judge, whom he described as “an extremely abusive individual.”
In its ruling, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals stated: “We hold that the district court did not err in any of the challenged rulings and that the jury’s duly rendered damages awards were reasonable in light of the extraordinary and egregious facts of this case.”
Carroll, now 81, first went public with her allegations in 2019. Trump responded at the time by saying she was “not my type.” During the trial, jurors were shown a 2022 deposition in which Trump mistakenly identified a photograph of Carroll as his former wife, Marla Maples a moment that undermined his earlier claim.
In 2023, another jury found Trump liable for sexually assaulting Carroll in a department store dressing room in 1996 and for defaming her again in 2022 by calling her allegations a “complete con job.” The appeals court agreed with the trial court’s finding that only a substantial financial penalty could deter Trump from further defamatory statements.
Although Trump was not required to attend the proceedings or testify, he used the case to generate significant media attention and to bolster his narrative of being politically targeted as he campaigns for a return to the White House.
