WASHINGTON, D.C. — President Donald Trump and the Department of Justice filed petitions with the U.S. Supreme Court on July 28, 2026, asking it to overturn an $83.3 million defamation judgment in favor of E. Jean Carroll. The filings seek to reverse the lower court rulings by invoking presidential immunity and the Westfall Act.

Trump's petition argues he is immune from the lawsuit under the doctrine of presidential immunity because the defamatory statements were made in 2019 while he was serving as president. The Department of Justice petition argues that the U.S. government should be substituted for Trump as the defendant under the Westfall Act, which shields federal employees from certain civil claims for conduct performed in the course of their official duties. The Westfall Act substitution would effectively dismiss Carroll's case because the U.S. government cannot be sued for defamation.

Trump's lawyers cited the Supreme Court's 2024 decision on presidential immunity in their filing. They argued the 2nd Circuit wrongly held that Trump forfeited presidential immunity because his first responsive pleading did not invoke it by name. The attorneys contended that the threat of damages judgments based on official acts would render presidents unable to carry out their duties for fear of personal liability.

"This is the first case in our Nation’s history in which a court has imposed damages liability on a President for his conduct in office," Trump's lawyers wrote in the filing. "If left standing, the decision below will cause significant damage, not only to this President and future Presidents, but also to ‘the Nation that the Presidency was designed to serve,’" Trump's lawyers wrote in the filing. "Here, the president of the United States has been ordered to pay nearly $100 million in damages for issuing a press release and answering reporters’ questions, from the White House, defending against attacks on his fitness for office," the filing said.

The legal proceedings trace back to 1996, when Carroll alleged that Trump sexually assaulted her in a Bergdorf Goodman department store dressing room in 1996. Trump denied the allegations in 2019, stating Carroll was not his type and that she fabricated the story to sell books. E. Jean Carroll sued Donald Trump in 2019 for defamation related to statements he made denying her allegations of sexual abuse. Trump has denied wrongdoing in both defamation cases.

A Manhattan federal court jury found Trump liable for defaming Carroll in January 2024 and awarded her $83.3 million in damages. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the $83.3 million defamation verdict in September 2025. In that opinion, the 2nd Circuit stated that the degree of reprehensibility of Trump's conduct was remarkably high. The court also noted that Trump's repeated comments resulted in a multitude of death threats and other threats of physical injury against Carroll.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to rehear the case en banc in April 2026. U.S. Circuit Judge Denny Chin wrote that Trump raised his immunity claims too late in the litigation, stating, "Presidential immunity was not raised for the first three years of this case." Judge Chin wrote that no other defendant would be permitted to move to substitute the United States in his place fifteen months after trial and the entry of judgment against him.

Carroll's legal team declined to comment on the Supreme Court petitions. The Supreme Court is not in session during the summer and will not consider the appeal until the fall.

The petition places the Supreme Court at the center of a dispute over the scope of presidential liability and the application of the Westfall Act to head-of-state conduct. The outcome will determine whether a sitting or former president can be held personally liable for damages arising from statements made while in office. This case arrives as the high court has recently addressed other significant legal matters, including the release of 2025 financial reports and limits on the Voting Rights Act Section 2 scope. The Department of Justice's involvement reflects the executive branch's interest in defining the boundaries of official duty protections.