Published on: Tue, 28 Jul 2026 22:50:15 GMT
Original Story: Trump urges Supreme Court to overturn E. Jean Carroll’s $83M defamation verdict – CNN

Trump’s Plea: ‘SCOTUS, Make It All Go Away!’

Alright, settle in, folks, because if you thought you’d seen the last of the E. Jean Carroll saga, you clearly haven’t been paying attention to the cyclical nature of political drama. Just when you think a chapter is closed, like, say, a jury hands down a whopping $83 million defamation verdict, someone always pulls out another dusty legal maneuver. This time, it’s a direct appeal to the Supreme Court. Because, apparently, when in doubt, just ask the highest court in the land to pretend everything you don’t like didn’t actually happen. It’s the legal equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling “LA LA LA I CAN’T HEAR YOU!”

Donald J. Trump, the man who has redefined the phrase “never concede,” is doing precisely that with the E. Jean Carroll defamation verdict. After losing twice in federal court – first for sexual assault and a prior defamation, then for another round of defamation after he just couldn’t keep his mouth shut – he’s now asking the Supreme Court to step in. It’s a classic move: when the game isn’t going your way, blame the referee, then appeal to the league commissioner. Even if the league commissioner has already, you know, ruled on similar issues and generally prefers to let lower court decisions stand.

The Unbearable Heaviness of Being Accountable

Let’s recap, shall we? Because some of us have the memory retention of a goldfish, and others just prefer to selectively forget inconvenient truths. In January, a New York jury ordered Trump to pay E. Jean Carroll a staggering $83.3 million. This wasn’t some petty parking ticket; this was a substantial sum, a clear message delivered by a jury of his peers after he repeatedly, publicly, and quite venomously attacked Carroll’s character, her story, and her motives. This came after a previous verdict in May 2023 that found him liable for sexually assaulting Carroll in the 1990s and then defaming her with earlier comments. So, we’re not just talking about one bad day in court; we’re talking about a pattern, legally recognized, of egregious behavior.

Why an Appeal to SCOTUS? Because Why Not?

Now, Trump’s legal team, in what can only be described as a Hail Mary pass from his own 1-yard line, is asking the Supreme Court to weigh in. What’s the core argument? Well, it boils down to the rather audacious claim that Trump should have “absolute immunity” for statements made while he was president. Because, you know, being president apparently grants you a free pass to say whatever you want about whomever you want, however false or damaging, without any personal repercussions. It’s a truly novel interpretation of presidential power, one that suggests the Oval Office functions as a sort of legal invisibility cloak. This isn’t just about the money; it’s about setting a precedent that would essentially place a president above the law for their speech, even when that speech is clearly outside the scope of their official duties and purely personal vendettas.

They’re essentially arguing that because he was president when he made those defamatory remarks, he’s somehow shielded from the consequences, even if those remarks were about a private citizen and her claims against him. It’s like arguing that because you’re a CEO, you can run over someone with your company car on your day off and claim it was “company business.” The legal system, bless its heart, tends to frown on such creative accounting of responsibility.

The Selective Memory of the “Law and Order” President

And here’s where the eye-rolling really begins for anyone who’s been paying attention for more than, oh, five minutes. This isn’t just about a rich guy trying to wiggle out of a massive bill; it’s about a fundamental hypocrisy that would be hilarious if it weren’t so infuriatingly consistent.

When Defamation Was a *Good* Thing (For Him)

Let’s cast our minds back, shall we? To the halcyon days of February 2016. Donald Trump, then a mere presidential candidate, was railing against the media during a rally in Fort Worth, Texas. He stood on that stage and declared, with all the bluster of a man who genuinely believed he was doing God’s work, that he would “open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money.”

Let that sink in for a moment. In 2016, candidate Trump was advocating for stronger libel (defamation) laws. He wanted it to be easier for people—specifically, people like him—to sue news organizations for publishing “purposely negative and horrible and false” information. He wanted to “win lots of money” from these lawsuits. He understood, then, the power and purpose of defamation law: to hold people accountable for false statements that harm reputations and to extract significant financial penalties as a consequence.

Fast forward to today. The very same individual, who once championed the idea of using robust defamation laws to “win lots of money,” is now desperately trying to dismantle the outcome of those very laws when they are applied to him. He was found by a jury to have made “purposely negative and horrible and false” statements about E. Jean Carroll, and now faces the very “lots of money” judgment he once envisioned for others. The irony isn’t just rich; it’s practically dripping with gold leaf.

This isn’t just a contradiction; it’s a glaring, neon-sign-flashing example of what we in the biz call “situational ethics.” Or, more accurately, “whatever benefits me at this exact moment, regardless of past statements or principles.” The man who wanted to arm himself with powerful defamation lawsuits now cries foul when the weapon is turned on him. It’s almost poetic, in a deeply cynical sort of way.

The SCOTUS Conundrum: A Political Hail Mary

So, what are the odds of the Supreme Court actually taking this case? Honestly, probably slim to none, and Slim just left town. The U.S. Supreme Court is not an appeals court of last resort for every single grievance. They typically take cases that present significant constitutional questions, resolve conflicts between lower courts, or address matters of national importance. While presidential immunity is a big deal, the specific question of whether a former president’s personal defamation while in office is immune from civil suit has largely been settled in lower courts, and they’ve already addressed aspects of presidential immunity in other contexts. This isn’t a split decision among circuit courts; this is just one very litigious individual who really, really doesn’t want to pay up.

Trump’s team is hoping that the conservative majority on the Court might be inclined to grant him some leniency, or at least a hearing, purely for political optics. But even the most politically aligned justices are usually loath to open the floodgates to every disgruntled litigant who feels a jury got it wrong. Plus, they’ve got their own immunity cases to deal with regarding January 6th, which are arguably far more impactful to the future of the presidency.

This appeal is less about a genuine expectation of legal victory and more about delay tactics, maintaining the narrative of victimhood, and signaling to his base that he’s still fighting against “the system.” It’s a performance, a legal side-show meant to consume headlines and rally the faithful, while simultaneously attempting to kick the financial can down the road a little further.

The Erosion of Trust, One Lawsuit at a Time

Every time Trump appeals a verdict like this, every time he attacks a judge or a jury, he isn’t just fighting his personal battles; he’s chipping away at public trust in the institutions that underpin our society. The idea that a jury of ordinary citizens can sit, listen to evidence, and deliver a fair verdict is fundamental. When that verdict is repeatedly dismissed as a “witch hunt” or challenged on increasingly flimsy grounds, it sends a message that the rule of law is optional for those with enough power and money.

For those of us who’ve spent decades watching the gears of democracy grind, it’s just exhausting. It’s the same song, different verse. The playbook hasn’t changed. Deny, deflect, attack, appeal, repeat. The only thing that seems to evolve is the sheer audacity of the claims being made.