President Donald Trump is seeking to overturn the jury’s verdict in a civil lawsuit where he was found liable for sexually abusing E. Jean Carroll and later defaming her. His legal team argues that the $5 million verdict was based on “indefensible evidentiary rulings,” allowing “inflammatory propensity evidence.” Trump’s lawyers claim the trial judge warped federal evidence rules to support Carroll’s claims, which they call a “politically motivated hoax.” The appeal to the Supreme Court follows a denial by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, who upheld the original verdict.
Read More
The federal appeals court upheld the $83 million defamation verdict against Donald Trump, rejecting his appeal. The court found that Trump failed to demonstrate grounds for reconsidering the previous holding on presidential immunity and that the district court’s rulings were appropriate. The appeals court also concluded that the jury’s damages awards were fair, and the punitive damages award was appropriate due to the reprehensibility of Trump’s conduct. This ruling leaves Trump responsible for the full amount of the judgment, which has increased since the initial verdict.
Read More
Trump fails to overturn E. Jean Carroll’s $83.3 million verdict, and honestly, you have to wonder at this point, what’s even the surprise? It’s become a recurring theme, hasn’t it? The legal battles, the appeals, the denials – it all just seems to be part of the same playbook. And in this instance, the playbook resulted in Donald Trump, once again, failing to have the verdict against him, stemming from E. Jean Carroll’s allegations, overturned. The man, as the saying goes, just can’t seem to catch a break in the courtroom.
For those just catching up, the core of this whole situation involves the accusations made by E.… Continue reading
In a recent development, a federal appeals court in New York has affirmed the civil jury verdict against former President Donald Trump. The court upheld the decision that found him liable for sexually abusing and defaming E. Jean Carroll, and which ordered him to pay $5 million in damages. The three-judge panel’s unanimous ruling stated Trump had not proven any errors from the district court that would warrant a new trial. This decision stems from the May 2023 verdict issued by a jury in Manhattan federal court.
Read More
The appeals court’s decision to bar the Department of Justice (DOJ) from representing Donald Trump in his appeal of E. Jean Carroll’s defamation case is a significant development, raising crucial questions about the role of the government in personal lawsuits involving former presidents. The ruling effectively prevents the use of taxpayer funds to defend Trump in this specific case, a point many find to be a long overdue correction of a deeply concerning precedent.
This decision underscores the principle that the DOJ’s responsibilities are to represent the interests of the American people, not to serve as a personal legal shield for any individual, even a former president.… Continue reading
The appeals court’s recent decision refusing to allow the Department of Justice (DOJ) to intervene in E. Jean Carroll’s $83 million verdict against Donald Trump is a significant development, raising questions about the separation of powers and the potential misuse of taxpayer funds. The court’s rejection effectively prevents the government from covering the damages Trump owes Carroll, leaving him personally responsible for the substantial sum. This outcome directly counters Trump’s attempts to utilize the Westfall Act, a law designed to protect federal employees from personal liability for actions taken within the scope of their employment. Trump’s strategy was to portray his actions as “official acts,” despite the fact that the alleged assault and defamation occurred well before his presidency.… Continue reading
The Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied Donald Trump’s request to reconsider the $5 million verdict in E. Jean Carroll’s sexual abuse and defamation case. The court upheld its December 2024 decision affirming the jury’s finding that Trump sexually abused and defamed Carroll. Trump’s arguments for reconsideration centered on the admission of the “Access Hollywood” tape and testimony from other women alleging similar misconduct. This ruling comes separate from a pending appeal of an $83.3 million defamation verdict against Trump in the same case, where he invokes Supreme Court precedent on presidential immunity.
Read More
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has definitively rejected Donald Trump’s appeal in the E. Jean Carroll sexual abuse and defamation case, upholding the $5 million judgment against him. This decision follows a prior ruling affirming the jury’s verdict and the admissibility of evidence demonstrating a pattern of similar behavior. Trump’s only remaining recourse is a petition to the Supreme Court, but this does not halt the collection process on the judgment. Failure to secure a stay and post bond could result in immediate asset seizures to satisfy the judgment.
Read More
The appeals court’s rejection of Donald Trump’s attempt to overturn the $5 million judgment awarded to E. Jean Carroll is a significant development in the ongoing legal battle. Trump had requested a hearing before the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit after a three-judge panel refused to overturn the verdict. This action, effectively denying his plea for a rehearing, solidifies the lower court’s decision finding him liable for sexual abuse.
This refusal to overturn the lower court’s decision reinforces the serious nature of the allegations against Trump. The considerable resources invested in this and numerous other Trump-related lawsuits are a cause for concern, raising questions about the allocation of public funds and the legal system’s capacity to address such high-profile cases efficiently.… Continue reading
Immunity does not shield Trump from the $83 million defamation judgment, according to E. Jean Carroll’s attorney. This assertion directly challenges any claim of presidential or other legal immunity that might protect Trump from the financial consequences of the verdict. The core argument hinges on the principle that even a position of power shouldn’t grant protection against the repercussions of proven wrongdoing, particularly in a civil case involving defamation.
The large sum of money involved underscores the severity of the court’s finding. $83 million represents a substantial financial penalty, and its significance lies not just in the amount itself but in its symbolic weight as a consequence for actions deemed defamatory.… Continue reading
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood