The Department of Justice has filed an appeal with the Supreme Court regarding an $83.3 million defamation judgment in favor of E. Jean Carroll. This legal challenge seeks to shift the financial burden of the verdict from Donald Trump to the federal government.
The 1988 Westfall Act and the bid for federal substitution
The Department of Justice (DOJ) is attempting to invoke a 1988 statute known as the Westfall Act to alter the outcome of the E. Jean Carroll litigation. As the report states, this law allows the federal government to step in as the defnedant if a government employee is sued for actions taken within the scope of their official duties.
By inoking the Westfall Act, the Trump administration aims to substitute the United States as the defendant in the $83.3 million case. The DOJ argues in its Supreme Court filing that the sitting President shoud not face nearly $100 million in personal liabiility for conduct that occurred within the scope of his federal office.
A $83.3 million judgment stemming from Bergdorf Goodman
The current legal battle centers on a massive jury award granted to writer E. Jean Carroll in 2024. This specific defamation suit follows allegations that Donald Trump defamed Carroll when he denied her claims of sexual assault occurring in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room during the early 1990s.
This case is the second major defamation victory for Carroll against Donald Trump . according to the source, the Supreme Court previously declined to hear an appeal regarding a separate $5 million defamation award, leaving the much larger $83.3 million judgment as the primary focus of this new Supreme Court petition.
The 2nd Circuit's April ruling on late immunity claims
The legal path to the Supreme Court has been obstructed by previous rulings from the 2nd U.S. Court of Appeals. In April of this year, the 2nd Circuit rejected Donald Trump's attempts to claim presidential immunity and substitute the United States as the defendant.
The 2nd U.S. court of Appeals specifically ruled that the arguments regarding immunity and the Westfall Act were raised too late in the proceedings. this procedural rejection has forced the Department of Justice to seek a final determination from the Supreme Court to resolve the question of whether the presidency can be shielded from such personal liabilities.
The legal definition of 'official scope' for the President
The central question remains whether the statements made by Donald Trump constitute actions taken within the official scope of the presidency. The Supreme Court must now decide if the Westfall Act applies to personal conduct that the DOJ claims was tied to federal office.
While the DOJ asserts the conduct was within the scope of employment, the source does not provide a rebuttal from E. Jean Carroll's legal team regarding this specific Westfall Act argument. It remains to be seen if the Court will address the timing of the immunity claims or focus strictly on the definition of official presidential duties.
Comments 0