2d Circuit holds firm on Jean Carroll's sexual assault and defamation verdict against Trump

The sexual assault case that E. Jean Carroll brought against Donald Trump is still the subject of court activity, long after the jury found in Carroll's civil suit that Trump had assaulted her in a department store dressing room. But for now, proceedings have ended in the Second Circuit, which declines to reconsider its prior ruling that upheld the verdict.

The case is Carroll v. Trump, issued on April 29. This case went to trial before Judge Kaplan in 2024. The jury said that Trump had sexually assaulted Carroll and then defamed her when she publicly announced the incident years after it happened. The jury awarded Carroll millions of dollars in damages. After the Second Circuit upheld the verdict last year, Trump's lawyers filed a motion for rehearing and en banc review. The latter procedure would have the the entire Court, and not just a three-judge panel, consider the case. The Second Circuit has denied that motion.

The Second Circuit rarely grants motions to rehear the case or to convene en banc. That's the culture of this Court. If an outcome is good enough for the three-judge panel, then it's good enough for the Court as a whole. But lawyers frequently seek rehearing upon losing the appeal, because we always think our case is good enough for a second bite at the apple. But this case shows that even a case against the President, upon a civil judgment involving sexual assault and defamation, will not win you a new appeal. If a case like this is not going to be reheard by the Court of Appeals, no case is going to be good enough.

Most of the judges agreed not to re-hear the case; that agreement was shared among judges appointed by Presidents of both parties, including Trump. Judge Menashi writes an extensive dissent from the order denying en banc review. However, writing separately in explaining why en banc review is not appropriate, Judge Chin notes that the Court had previously denied this relief on multiple occasions in this case, and that the primary issues raised in the en banc petition this time around -- that Trump was acting within the scope of his office and employment as President when he made the defamatory statements and may therefore invoke certain protections from civil suit, and that he was also immune from suit under recent Supreme Court authority -- were both waived by Trump during this litigation. The en banc petition also challenges the $65 million punitive damages award. Judge Chin writes that, in light of the nature of the case and Carroll's injuries from the assault and defamation -- the Second Circuit has already held this award was not grossly excessive to warrant a reduction.