The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York has issued a significant order granting Donald Trump a stay on the $83 million defamation award owed to writer E. Jean Carroll. This ruling effectively halts the payment requirement until the Supreme Court either reviews the case or decides to bypass it. The appellate court’s decision follows a request from Trump‘s legal counsel after they were previously denied the opportunity to challenge the award before the full appeals court. While the stay offers a temporary reprieve, it comes with the condition that Trump must increase his bond by $7.46 million to account for the interest accumulating during the continued legal proceedings.
Roberta Kaplan, the attorney representing E. Jean Carroll, noted that the total bond amount will now reach nearly $100 million, ensuring the funds are secured for her client. Trump‘s legal strategy remains focused on a federal law that would potentially substitute the U.S. government as the defendant in the lawsuit. Since the federal government generally maintains immunity from defamation claims, such a maneuver could effectively end Carroll’s case. Although lower courts have previously rejected this strategy, Trump’s team continues to press the issue as they seek intervention from the nation’s highest court.
The current legal battle stems from a 2024 jury verdict which found that Trump defamed Carroll by repeatedly and forcefully denying her allegations of sexual abuse in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room during the mid-1990s. This specific award is separate from another $5 million judgment from 2023, which Trump is also currently appealing. In his petitions to the Supreme Court, Trump’s attorneys have characterized the allegations as “facially implausible” and “politically motivated,” arguing that the original trial was compromised by unfair evidentiary rulings.
The defense team has specifically objected to the admission of the infamous 2005 “Access Hollywood” tape and the testimony of two other accusers, Jessica Leeds and Natasha Stoynoff, who alleged similar misconduct by Trump in 1979 and 2005, respectively. Trump‘s lawyers argue that these accounts lacked credibility and were used to prejudice the jury. Furthermore, they pointed out that Carroll waited over 20 years to come forward, doing so only after Trump became president, which they suggest was a move designed to maximize political damage and personal profit. The defense even suggested that Carroll’s account mirrored a plot from the television show “Law & Order.”
Throughout the litigation, Trump has maintained a stance of total denial, frequently utilizing Truth Social to label the case a “complete con job” and claiming he has no idea who Carroll is. He has often repeated the refrain that she was “not my type” to dismiss the allegations. As the Supreme Court justices prepare to hold private conferences to consider these petitions, the outcome will determine if the former president must finally pay the massive judgments or if his legal maneuvers will successfully shielded him from the financial consequences of the jury’s findings. The case remains a high-stakes intersection of law and politics as Trump continues his campaign for the presidency.
