The legal saga between writer E. Jean Carroll and Donald Trump has been a wild ride of high-stakes courtroom drama, massive dollar amounts, and complex constitutional questions. It’s the kind of stuff that keeps law professors up at night and cable news pundits talking in circles. But lately, the heat has turned up on one specific legal maneuver: presidential immunity.
Basically, Donald Trump has been trying to use his status as a former (and now current) president to shield himself from the massive $83.3 million defamation verdict handed down in early 2024. His legal team argues that because he was in the Oval Office when he made those disparaging remarks about Carroll in 2019, he should be untouchable.
E. Jean Carroll lawyers dispute Trump immunity claim with a pretty straightforward argument: you can't just sit on a defense for three years and then suddenly pull it out of your hat when things go south. They call it a waiver. The courts, so far, seem to agree.
The $83 Million Question: What’s Really at Stake?
Let’s be real, $83.3 million is a staggering amount of money. For Carroll, it represents a hard-won victory after decades of silence regarding an alleged assault in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room in the 1990s. For Trump, it's a massive financial hit and a legal precedent he's desperate to overturn.
The core of the current dispute isn't about whether the assault happened—juries have already weighed in on that. It’s about whether a president can be sued for personal comments made while they’re technically "on the clock." Trump’s lawyers are leaning hard on the Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling in Trump v. United States, which gave presidents broad immunity for "official acts."
But here’s the kicker.
Carroll’s lead attorney, Roberta "Robbie" Kaplan, argues that even if immunity could have applied, Trump missed his window. In legal terms, he "waived" the right. Imagine playing a game of poker and trying to call "time out" after the dealer has already flipped the cards. It just doesn't work that way.
✨ Don't miss: Economics Related News Articles: What the 2026 Headlines Actually Mean for Your Wallet
Breaking Down the Immunity Argument
Trump’s team insists that his denials of Carroll’s accusations were part of his official duties. They claim he was "defending the presidency" and responding to press inquiries as the nation's leader.
Carroll’s team sees it differently:
- The personal vs. official divide: They argue that calling a woman a "liar" and saying she’s "not my type" isn't exactly a state secret or a diplomatic necessity.
- Timing is everything: Trump didn't raise the immunity defense in his initial response to the lawsuit. He waited until the case was well underway.
- The Supreme Court Factor: While the 2024 SCOTUS ruling was a win for Trump in his criminal cases, Carroll's lawyers point out that the Second Circuit Court of Appeals has already ruled that immunity can be waived in civil cases.
Why the Second Circuit Sided with Carroll
In September 2025, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals dealt a major blow to Trump's strategy. They upheld the $83.3 million judgment, basically telling Trump's team that they were too late to the party. The court noted that Trump had "failed to identify any grounds that would warrant reconsidering" their prior holding on immunity.
It was a "too little, too late" situation.
The judges were pretty clear: the Supreme Court’s new ruling on immunity didn’t magically erase the fact that Trump ignored the defense for years during the trial phase. You can't just ignore a rule and then ask for a "do-over" because the Supreme Court clarified a different part of the law later on.
The "Official Acts" Grey Area
One of the biggest misconceptions is that the Supreme Court gave the President a "get out of jail free" card for everything. They didn't. They created a distinction between:
🔗 Read more: Why a Man Hits Girl for Bullying Incidents Go Viral and What They Reveal About Our Breaking Point
- Core Constitutional Powers: Absolute immunity.
- Official Acts: Presumptive immunity.
- Unofficial Acts: No immunity at all.
Roberta Kaplan has been relentless in characterizing Trump’s 2019 comments as purely personal. If the court views these statements as unofficial, the immunity argument evaporates instantly. Honestly, it's hard to argue that personal insults about a private citizen's appearance fall under the "outer perimeter" of presidential duties.
What Most People Get Wrong About the Carroll Case
There is a lot of noise surrounding this case, and it’s easy to get lost in the headlines. Here are a few things that often get twisted:
"The Jury Found Him Guilty of Rape"
Actually, the jury in the first trial (the $5 million one) found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation, but not "rape" under the very specific, narrow definition in New York law at the time. However, Judge Lewis Kaplan later clarified that the conduct the jury did find proven—forcible digital penetration—is what most people commonly understand as rape.
"The Money is Already in Carroll's Pocket"
Not exactly. While Trump had to post a bond for the full amount plus interest (over $90 million) to appeal, the money stays in a sort of legal limbo until the final appeals are exhausted. If Trump loses at the Supreme Court level, then Carroll gets paid.
"This Case is Only About 2019"
There are actually two cases, often called Carroll I and Carroll II.
- Carroll I: Defamation based on his 2019 statements while President. This is the $83.3 million one.
- Carroll II: Battery and defamation based on his 2022 statements after he left office. This resulted in the $5 million verdict.
What Happens Next?
As of early 2026, Trump has petitioned the Supreme Court to take a look at the $5 million verdict, and the $83 million case is likely headed there too. Carroll’s lawyers just filed a response on January 16, 2026, urging the high court to stay out of it.
💡 You might also like: Why are US flags at half staff today and who actually makes that call?
They’re basically saying, "The lower courts got it right. There’s no new constitutional question here, just a defendant who didn't follow the rules of procedure."
If the Supreme Court refuses to hear the case, it’s game over for Trump’s appeals. The bond money would be released to Carroll. If they do take it, we could be looking at a landmark ruling that defines exactly where a president's "official" life ends and their "personal" life begins.
Actionable Insights for Following the Case
If you're trying to keep track of this legal marathon, here’s what you should actually look for in the coming months:
- Watch the SCOTUS Docket: Keep an eye on whether the Supreme Court grants a "writ of certiorari." If they do, the case will be argued in late 2026.
- The "Westfall Act" Arguments: You'll hear this term a lot. It’s the law that allows the government to step in and defend federal employees. The courts have already rejected this for Trump in this case, but his team keeps trying to revive it.
- The Impact of the Presidency: Now that Trump is back in office, his lawyers might try to argue that the cases should be paused or "stayed" until he leaves. Carroll's team will fight this tooth and nail, arguing that a sitting president isn't immune from civil lawsuits for unofficial acts (citing the Clinton v. Jones precedent).
The battle over the E. Jean Carroll lawyers dispute Trump immunity claim isn't just about one woman or one former president. It’s about whether the legal system applies the same rules to everyone, regardless of the office they hold. Whether you're a legal nerd or just someone following the news, the outcome of this fight will set the tone for presidential accountability for decades to come.
To stay updated on the specific filings, you can check the Second Circuit's public docket or SCOTUSblog, which provides excellent, non-partisan breakdowns of these high-level maneuvers.