Donald Trump isn't done fighting E. Jean Carroll. Not by a long shot.
On Wednesday, his legal team formally opposed the $5 million defamation verdict against him—arguing the jury's 2023 decision should be tossed out because the former president was acting in his official capacity when he denied Carroll's rape allegation. The move is a Hail Mary, hinging on a Supreme Court immunity argument that has already failed in lower courts.
“This is a man who will never admit defeat, not in an election and not in a courtroom,” says Georgia State law professor Anthony Michael Kreis. “But this argument is a stretch—even for him.”
The Immunity Hail Mary
Trump's lawyers claim that because Carroll accused him of sexual abuse while he was president, his denials were part of his official duties. Under that logic, the Justice Department should have substituted the United States as the defendant—and the case should have been dismissed.
The problem? Courts have already rejected that argument. Twice.
A federal judge in Manhattan ruled that Trump's statements were not within the scope of his employment. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed. Now Trump is asking the Supreme Court to step in, even as he fights the $83.3 million verdict in a separate Carroll defamation case—the one stemming from comments he made as president-elect.
“He's essentially trying to relitigate a settled issue,” says former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti. “The Supreme Court has shown little appetite for this kind of presidential immunity claim.”
Two Trials, Two Losses
Carroll, a longtime advice columnist, first sued Trump in 2019 after he accused her of lying about the alleged assault in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room in the mid-1990s. A jury in 2023 found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation, awarding Carroll $5 million in damages. A second jury in 2024 added another $83.3 million for defamatory comments Trump made in 2019.
Trump has appealed both verdicts. But the $5 million case is the one he's now pinning his hopes on—because it involves a technicality that could, in theory, wipe out the entire judgment if the Supreme Court agrees to hear it.
Don't hold your breath.
The high court has already declined to fast-track a similar immunity claim in the separate Jan. 6-related criminal case against Trump. And while the justices agreed to hear a broader question about presidential immunity for official acts, that case focuses on criminal prosecution—not civil defamation.
The Clock Is Ticking
Carroll's lawyers have until July 30 to respond to Trump's latest filing. If the Supreme Court denies review, the $5 million verdict stands—and Trump will owe the money, plus interest, unless he can convince a lower court to toss it on other grounds.
But Trump is playing for time. Every delay pushes the case further into 2026, a midterm election year where he's expected to be a dominant figure. And if he can keep the Supreme Court argument alive, he might avoid paying a dime—at least until after the election.
“This is a classic Trump legal strategy: delay, appeal, and hope the clock runs out,” says Kreis. “It's worked before. It might work again.”
What's at Stake
The $5 million isn't chump change, but for Trump—a man who claims a net worth in the billions—it's not about the money. It's about the principle.
“He cannot stand to lose,” says Mariotti. “He sees every verdict as a personal humiliation. Fighting it, even if the odds are terrible, is his way of saving face.”
But there's a bigger risk: if the Supreme Court takes the case and rules against Trump, it could set a precedent that limits presidential immunity for defamation—and potentially other civil claims—for years to come.
That's a gamble Trump seems willing to take. Because for him, there's always another appeal. Another jury. Another chance to win.
Carroll, meanwhile, is done waiting. Her lawyers have asked the court to enforce the judgment and start collecting.
The question now: will the Supreme Court even bother to respond?
