A federal appeals court has confirmed a civil jury’s decision that former President Donald Trump is required to pay E. Jean Carroll $126 million (approximately AU$198 million) due to his continuous social media attacks against her following her allegations of sexual assault. The 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals released its ruling on Monday, dismissing Trump’s appeal against the defamation compensation, stating that the jury’s awarded damages were deemed “fair and reasonable.”
Trump contended he should not face the financial penalty, referring to a Supreme Court ruling that broadened presidential immunity. His legal team had requested a retrial. The jury in Manhattan previously reached the decision after a trial focusing on Trump’s repeated denigrations of Carroll, who accused him of assaulting her in a department store dressing room back in 1996.
This ruling followed an earlier trial where Trump was found liable for sexually abusing Carroll, for which he was ordered to compensate her $7.5 million (about AU$11.6 million). An appeals court upheld this earlier verdict last December.
In her testimony, Carroll recounted a chance meeting with Trump that began amicably but culminated in a violent confrontation. She alleged that Trump forcefully attacked her in the dressing room, slamming her against the wall and sexually assaulting her. While the jury found him liable for sexual assault, they did not classify the act as rape under New York law.
Trump has consistently denied Carroll’s accusations, asserting that the incident never occurred and claiming her allegations are fabrications aimed at promoting her book. He even stated that Carroll was “not his type.”
Following the first jury verdict, a second trial determined damages concerning further statements Trump made that undermined Carroll’s character and integrity. Trump, who was absent during the initial civil trial, was present for the damages trial, which coincided with his 2024 presidential campaign.
Throughout the proceedings, Trump characterised the lawsuit as an attempt to tarnish his reputation and hinder his chances of returning to the presidency. His lawyers expressed dissatisfaction with the judge’s limitations imposed during the second trial, which prevented them from arguing Trump’s innocence regarding the assault, as this had already been settled in the first trial.
The court determined that these issues had been adequately addressed and did not warrant revisiting.