Trump Asks SCOTUS to Vacate $83.3M Carroll Verdict Under Westfall Act

President Donald Trump’s legal team asked the Supreme Court on July 28, 2026, to overturn an $83.3 million defamation judgment awarded to writer E. Jean Carroll, advancing a sweeping argument that no president should face civil liability for statements made in the course of official duties. The petition marks an escalation in a legal battle that has already yielded two civil verdicts against Trump and tested the boundaries of presidential immunity in a novel context—where a sitting president is ordered to pay damages for defaming a private citizen who accused him of sexual assault. At the heart of Trump’s latest filing is an invocation of the Westfall Act, a federal statute that ordinarily shields government employees from personal tort liability when they act within the scope of their employment. Trump’s lawyers contend that his denials of Carroll’s allegations, including a 2022 social media post and responses to White House reporters, were official acts protecting his fitness for office. If the Westfall Act applies, the defendant would be substituted with the United States—against which defamation suits are barred by sovereign immunity—effectively nullifying the $83.3 million award. “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,’” the filing reads, citing Supreme Court precedent that fear of liability could cripple the executive’s ability to act boldly. The petition arrives after a series of lower-court setbacks for Trump. In 2023, a New York jury found him liable for sexual abuse against Carroll and awarded $5 million in damages for a related claim. A separate 2024 defamation trial ended with the $83.3 million award—$18.3 million in compensatory damages and $65 million in punitive damages—after jurors concluded Trump maliciously harmed Carroll’s reputation. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit upheld both verdicts, and the Supreme Court previously declined to review the $5 million judgment (though Trump has requested a rare rehearing). Carroll’s attorneys, meanwhile, have declined to comment on the new high court filing, pointing instead to the unanimous appellate panel that found Trump’s statements were personal, not official. The legal stakes extend far beyond the monetary sum. This is the first instance in American history where a president has been ordered to pay damages for conduct while in office, raising fundamental questions about the scope of the presidency’s immunity from civil litigation. The Supreme Court’s landmark 1982 decision in Nixon v. Fitzgerald granted absolute immunity for official acts, but that case involved a former president. Trump v. United States in 2024 addressed criminal immunity, not defamation liability. Whether the Fitzgerald doctrine or the Westfall Act can shield a president from a private defamation suit over disparaging comments is uncharted territory. Some scholars note that the Westfall Act explicitly excludes constitutional officers like the president from its coverage for intentional torts, while others argue that the act’s certification process—whereby the Attorney General certifies conduct was within the scope of employment—could be tested here. The petition emphasizes the chilling effect of allowing damages liability for a president’s statements made from the White House, warning that future presidents might hesitate to defend themselves publicly against allegations that could undermine their authority. Conversely, letting the judgment stand would signal that presidents are not above the law when they use official channels to level personal attacks, potentially opening a new avenue for accountability. Because the Supreme Court already rejected Trump’s petition on the smaller $5 million verdict, the odds of certiorari on this $83.3 million petition may be seen as slim. Yet the sheer size of the award and the novelty of the Westfall Act argument could draw the justices’ interest. Should the Court accept the case, oral argument would likely focus on whether Trump’s statements qualified as official acts, whether the Westfall Act can be invoked in a presidential context, and whether a trial court’s refusal to apply it is reviewable on interlocutory appeal. A denial of cert would leave the $83.3 million judgment intact, forcing Trump to pay or further exhaust post-judgment remedies. In either scenario, the case will reverberate through future litigations against presidents, shaping the contours of executive immunity in an era of heightened personal liability for public officials.