President Donald Trump can now take his challenge of an $83 million verdict to the U.S. Supreme Court after an appeals court chose not to rehear his case.
“In a split vote, a majority of the 12-member 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied Trump’s motion for a hearing by the full bench of judges, or an ‘en banc’ hearing,” NBC News reported on the president’s appeal of the verdict in the case brought by writer E. Jean Carroll who was awarded $83 million in 2024 after she claimed Trump had defamed her over an alleged sexual encounter three decades ago.
Trump’s legal team vowed to appeal, labeling the decision “Liberal Lawfare” in a statement after the court’s decision.
“The American People stand with President Trump in demanding an immediate end to the unlawful, radical weaponization of our justice system, and a swift dismissal of all of the Witch Hunts, including the illegal, Democrat-funded travesty of the Carroll Hoaxes—the defense of which the Attorney General has determined is legally required to be taken over by the Department of Justice because Carroll based her false claims on the President’s official acts.”
“A three-judge panel of the 2nd Circuit first rejected an appeal from Trump based on presidential immunity in September,” NBC News noted. “In his second appeal, Trump’s lawyers sought to replace the defendant with the United States and make another claim of presidential immunity, which the appeals court dismissed Wednesday.”
In a 34-page statement, Judge Denny Chin wrote: “The fact of the matter is 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.”
“The Court appropriately declined to convene en banc to revisit this issue,” he added.
Three of the 12-member panel, however, voted in favor of rehearing en banc.
“Whatever one thinks about the merits of Trump v. United States, everyone agrees that it represents a significant legal development,” Trump-appointed Circuit Court Judges Steven J. Menashi and Michael H. Park, and Chief Judge Debra Ann Livingston, a George W. Bush appointee, wrote in the dissent.
“I would rehear the case en banc to bring our case law about the scope of presidential duties and immunity into conformity with decisions of the Supreme Court and to resolve these questions of exceptional importance in line with the constitutional separation of powers and normal judicial practice,” Menashi wrote in the 54-page opinion.
Meanwhile, Carroll’s attorney, Roberta Kaplan, was “pleased” with the majority opinion.
“We are pleased that the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has denied President Trump’s petition for an en banc hearing in connection with the verdict from the second jury trial,” attorney Roberta Kaplan told ABC News. “E. Jean Carroll is eager for this case, originally filed in 2019, to be over so that she can finally obtain justice.”
Writers and editors can be contacted at [email protected] with feedback, tips, or corrections.
Originally from New York, Powers graduated from New York University and eventually made her way to sunny South Florida. Powers also contributes to BizPac Review.
- Tucker Carlson tells Trump, ‘You have failed’ - April 30, 2026
- Appeals court declines to rehear Trump’s challenge to $83M E Jean Carroll verdict - April 30, 2026
- PGA Tour is returning to Trump-owned golf course. Let the TDS begin! - April 27, 2026
Comment
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.