U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan issued an order on July 8 requiring that $5 million plus interest—totaling $5.8 million—be paid to New York columnist E. Jean Carroll. The funds are currently held in a court investment account resulting from a judgment against President Donald Trump. Despite the judge’s directive, the payment faces immediate legal hurdles as Trump has moved to appeal the ruling.
Trump has filed an emergency request with the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, seeking to halt Judge Kaplan’s order while he continues to litigate the matter. This latest development follows the Supreme Court’s June 29 decision to decline hearing an appeal regarding the $5.8 million case, which prompted Carroll to request that the judge authorize the transfer of funds.
The legal dispute involves two separate judgments against the former president. The smaller amount stems from a jury finding Trump liable for sexual abuse against Carroll, while a larger $83 million judgment was awarded by a different jury that found Trump defamed Carroll when he denied her allegations. Regarding the latter, Judge Kaplan instructed the second jury to accept the findings of the initial case and focus solely on determining the damages owed for comments Trump made while in office.
In a court filing submitted on July 7, Trump’s legal team argued that both cases are deeply connected, asserting that his official statements as president were an “indispensable” component of the larger judgment. His lawyers contended that because the Supreme Court ruled in 2024 that presidents maintain immunity for most official acts, these lawsuits should be barred. “That use of official Presidential statements matters, because this Court has made clear that official Presidential acts may not be used as evidence to impose liability for other conduct,” the filing stated.
Trump maintains that he retains active appeals that could protect him from both the $5.8 million and $83 million judgments. Furthermore, he has requested a rehearing from the Supreme Court regarding the smaller case and noted that he could still appeal the $83 million judgment by July 28.
