NEW YORK – President Donald Trump’s lawyer, hoping for an eventual Supreme Court victory, has asked a federal appeals court in New York to temporarily block a longtime columnist from collecting an $83 million defamation award.
The lawyer, Justin D. Smith, told the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a filing Tuesday to stay its decision supporting the award so that Trump won’t have to pay writer E. Jean Carroll while he appeals to the high court.
Recommended Videos
A Manhattan jury awarded Carroll the payout in January 2024. Another jury in May 2023 awarded Carroll $5 million after concluding Trump sexually abused her in a Manhattan luxury department store dressing room in 1996 and then defamed her after she published her account of it in 2019.
Trump has vehemently denied sexually abusing Carroll or ever knowing her and has repeatedly accused her of making accusations against him for political purposes or to promote her memoir.
In court papers filed with the 2nd Circuit, Smith told the appeals court that Carroll's lawyer does not oppose the request for a stay as long as Trump increases the bond posted after the verdict by $7.4 million to cover any post-judgment interest that would accrue during a possible Supreme Court review.
Attorney Roberta Kaplan, who represents Carroll, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Smith told the 2nd Circuit that Trump “will suffer irreparable harm” if he must pay Carroll now because she has said publicly that she plans to give the award away, meaning the president would not be able to recover the money if the high court reverses the verdict.
Smith said there was a “reasonable probability” that the Supreme Court will take up an appeal in part based on Trump's insistence that he has absolute immunity from a lawsuit stemming from statements he made while he was president.
In support of his request, Smith cited arguments in a dissent by three 2nd Circuit judges to a decision last week in which the appeals court refused to put the case before all of the court's active judges, leaving standing a three-judge panel's September decision upholding the verdict.
He wrote that there was “at least a fair prospect that the Supreme Court will reverse the Panel.”