The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has paused enforcement of the $83 million defamation judgment against former President Donald Trump in favor of writer E. Jean Carroll, halting payment until the Supreme Court either accepts or declines to hear the case [1]. The court conditioned the stay on Trump increasing his bond by $7.46 million to cover interest accruing during the delay [1]. The ruling came in response to Trump's motion filed the previous week asking the court to pause its own prior ruling rejecting en banc rehearing [2].
The underlying judgment, one of the largest individual defamation awards in U.S. history, arose from statements Trump made about Carroll after she alleged he sexually assaulted her in a New York department store in the mid-1990s [1]. Trump's broader legal strategy hinges on the Westfall Act, a federal statute that shields government employees from personal liability for acts taken within the scope of their official duties [2]. Trump argues that statements he made while serving as president fall within that scope, which, if accepted, would substitute the United States as the defendant and effectively nullify Carroll's damages claim against him personally [2].
The Second Circuit previously denied Trump's petition for en banc review, leaving the three-judge panel's ruling in place before the stay application [2]. The court's decision to pause its own mandate while Trump pursues Supreme Court review is procedurally notable: it signals the court found sufficient reason to preserve the status quo pending a higher tribunal's assessment of the presidential immunity and Westfall Act questions Trump raises [1]. Trump must maintain the increased bond as a condition of the stay, ensuring a secured fund remains available to Carroll if his petition ultimately fails [1].
The Supreme Court has not yet indicated whether it will take the case. If the Court denies certiorari, the stay will dissolve and Carroll could move to collect the full judgment, plus accrued interest, from Trump's bond [1]. If the Court grants review, the case would enter full briefing, extending the enforcement delay by at least another term. The outcome could carry significant precedent on the reach of Westfall Act immunity for presidential speech and the conditions under which a sitting or former president may substitute the government as a litigation defendant.