Trump and DOJ ask Supreme Court to review E. Jean Carroll defamation damages award

President Donald Trump and the Justice Department have petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for review of a defamation verdict and damages award won by writer E. Jean Carroll, The Hill reported on July 29. The administration’s filing seeks to bring the dispute before the nation’s highest court after lower-court proceedings concluded in Carroll’s favor, culminating in an $83.3 million award, the outlet said.

According to The Hill, the Trump administration is attempting to rely on a federal law that permits the U.S. government to step in when a lawsuit involves an employee acting within the scope of federal employment. The outlet said the administration wants the Supreme Court to consider whether that statute should apply to Carroll’s claims and the resulting damages.

The defamation case centers on Carroll’s public accusations that Trump sexually assaulted her, a dispute that proceeded through the civil court system and ended with a jury finding of defamation. The Hill’s report characterized the Supreme Court petition as part of an effort to revisit the basis for liability and the damages resulting from the verdict.

Carroll’s case is notable not only for the damages amount, but also for the procedural questions it raises about the boundaries of federal involvement in lawsuits naming senior government officials. The government’s stated approach, as described by The Hill, would shift the posture of the litigation toward questions of statutory authority and the federal government’s role, rather than leaving the matter solely as a dispute between private parties.

The next procedural step in a Supreme Court petition typically involves the justices deciding whether to grant review. If the Court grants the request, it would address the issues raised by the administration regarding the government’s ability to intervene and any related legal questions concerning the scope and handling of the case.

If the Supreme Court does not take the petition, the lower-court judgment and damages award would remain in place, subject to any other post-judgment remedies permitted under federal law. The Hill did not indicate within its report the timing of the Court’s decision or whether any opposing arguments had been filed on the docket at the time of publication.