The DOJ's motion to substitute the U.S. government for Trump in Carroll's $83 million defamation case tests whether presidential press denials are official acts.
The Department of Justice has filed a motion in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit seeking to substitute the United States government as the defendant in place of Donald Trump in E. Jean Carroll's $83 million defamation judgment [1]. The motion argues that Trump's public denials of Carroll's allegations, made during his first term, constituted official acts within the scope of his presidential duties, entitling him to the protections of the Federal Tort Claims Act and, ultimately, full government substitution [1].
The filing arrives in the appellate posture of the Carroll matter, where Trump has pursued reversal of the jury verdict entered against him personally [1]. Carroll, the writer who accused Trump of sexual assault, prevailed at trial in New York federal court, and the $83 million figure reflects both compensatory and punitive components awarded by the jury. The Second Circuit must resolve the substitution motion before any further appellate steps, including a potential petition to the Supreme Court, can proceed [1]. Brett Shumate, the DOJ official overseeing the government's position, has advanced the substitution theory as consistent with the broader immunity framework the Supreme Court established in Trump v. United States in 2024 [1].
The legal significance of the motion extends beyond this single case. If the Second Circuit accepts the argument that a president's press-event denials about personal conduct qualify as official acts, the ruling would mark a substantial expansion of presidential immunity into civil tort liability [1]. The 2024 Supreme Court decision addressed criminal exposure for official acts but left the contours of civil immunity largely unresolved [1]. A favorable ruling for the government here would, in effect, transfer financial liability from a former president to the federal treasury and insulate future occupants of the office from personal civil judgments arising from statements made while in power [1].
Observers note that the theory requires courts to treat inherently personal denials, a sitting president disputing a private individual's allegations of pre-presidential conduct, as governmental speech [1]. That analytical move has no clear precedent and would require the Second Circuit to extend existing doctrine considerably. Carroll's legal team is expected to contest the substitution vigorously, and the outcome will shape the scope of accountability available to private litigants against a sitting or former president.
The Second Circuit's ruling on the motion will set the immediate procedural course [1]. If the court denies substitution, Trump faces the judgment personally. If it grants substitution, Carroll's recovery path runs through the federal government, and the constitutional questions will likely move toward the Supreme Court.