Appeals Court Rules DOJ Cannot Represent Trump in E. Jean Carroll Defamation Appeal: What It Means for Taxpayers and Justice

By Boncopia Staff | June 19, 2025 | U.S. News & Politics

In a significant legal development, a federal appeals court ruled on Wednesday, June 18, 2025, that the Department of Justice (DOJ) cannot represent President Donald Trump in his appeal of an $83 million defamation judgment awarded to writer E. Jean Carroll. This decision ensures that American taxpayers will not foot the bill for Trump’s ongoing legal battle, marking a pivotal moment in a case that has gripped public attention for years. Here’s a deep dive into the ruling, its implications, and what it means for both Trump and the public.

The Background: E. Jean Carroll’s Defamation Case Against Trump

The case stems from allegations by E. Jean Carroll, a former Elle magazine columnist, who claimed that Trump sexually assaulted her in a Bergdorf Goodman department store dressing room in the mid-1990s. When Carroll went public with her accusations, Trump denied the claims, calling them a “hoax” and stating that Carroll was “not my type.” These statements, made during his first term as president and later on Truth Social in 2022, led Carroll to file defamation lawsuits, arguing that Trump’s denials damaged her reputation.

In 2023, a Manhattan federal jury found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation, awarding Carroll $5 million in damages. A subsequent trial in January 2024 resulted in a staggering $83.3 million verdict for additional defamation claims, bringing the total damages to $88.3 million across both cases. Trump has appealed both judgments, but the latest ruling from the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals focuses on the $83 million case, denying his request to have DOJ lawyers represent him in the appeal set for oral arguments on June 24, 2025.

The Appeals Court Ruling: Why the DOJ Can’t Step In

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision to block the DOJ from representing Trump is rooted in the question of whether Trump’s defamatory statements were made within the scope of his official presidential duties. Trump and his legal team argued that his comments, particularly those made during his presidency, should be considered official acts, entitling him to representation by the DOJ under the Westfall Act. This federal law allows the government to substitute itself as a defendant in cases where federal employees are sued for actions taken in their official capacity.

However, the three-judge panel rejected this argument, determining that Trump’s statements defaming Carroll were not part of his official duties as president. The court’s reasoning aligns with broader legal interpretations that personal attacks or denials of private allegations do not fall under the umbrella of presidential responsibilities. This ruling reinforces a critical distinction: not everything a president says or does qualifies as an official act, especially when it involves personal legal disputes.

As a result, Trump must rely on his private legal team to argue the appeal, and taxpayers are spared the burden of funding his defense. This decision comes as a setback for Trump, who has faced multiple legal challenges, including the recent denial of an en banc rehearing in the $5 million Carroll case on June 13, 2025.

Why This Matters: Taxpayers and Presidential Accountability

The appeals court’s ruling has far-reaching implications beyond the specifics of the Carroll case. Here’s why it’s a significant moment in U.S. politics and law:

1. Protecting Taxpayer Dollars: By denying DOJ representation, the court ensures that public funds will not be used to defend Trump in a personal legal battle. This is a win for taxpayers, as it prevents the government from absorbing the costs of a case tied to Trump’s private conduct rather than his official duties.

2. Defining Presidential Limits: The decision clarifies that presidents are not immune from personal liability for actions outside their official roles. The court’s stance that defamation is not an official presidential act sets a precedent for holding elected officials accountable for their personal statements, even when made in the public eye.

3. Impact on Trump’s Legal Strategy: Trump’s attempt to invoke presidential immunity and DOJ representation has been a recurring strategy in his legal battles. The rejection of this approach in the Carroll case may weaken similar arguments in other lawsuits, including his appeal of the $83 million verdict, where he has cited the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on presidential immunity.

4. Public Perception and Political Ramifications: The ruling comes at a time when Trump’s legal troubles continue to intersect with his political comeback. As he navigates his second term, the ongoing Carroll cases serve as a reminder of the controversies that have followed him, potentially influencing public and voter sentiment.

The Broader Context: Carroll’s Legal Victories and Trump’s Challenges

E. Jean Carroll’s legal battles with Trump have been a high-profile saga, drawing attention to issues of sexual misconduct, defamation, and the limits of presidential privilege. Her first victory in 2023, which awarded $5 million for sexual abuse and defamation, was upheld by the 2nd Circuit in December 2024, with a subsequent denial of a rehearing last week. The $83 million verdict in 2024, stemming from additional defamatory statements, underscored the financial and reputational stakes for Trump.

Carroll, now 81, has expressed satisfaction with the courts’ decisions, stating through her attorney, Roberta Kaplan, that she is “pleased” with the rulings holding Trump accountable. She has also announced plans to use the awarded funds to support causes such as women’s reproductive rights and voting rights, framing her legal fight as a broader stand against Trump’s influence.

Meanwhile, Trump’s legal team continues to pursue appeals, with the Supreme Court as a potential next stop. However, the 2nd Circuit’s consistent rejections of Trump’s arguments suggest an uphill battle. The dissenting opinions from Trump-appointed judges, Steven Menashi and Michael Park, who criticized evidentiary rulings in the $5 million case, indicate some judicial support for Trump’s position, but the majority has held firm.

What’s Next for the Case?

With oral arguments scheduled for June 24, 2025, Trump’s appeal of the $83 million verdict will proceed without DOJ backing. His legal team is likely to argue that the Supreme Court’s recent decision on presidential immunity should shield him from liability, but the appeals court’s latest ruling suggests skepticism about applying immunity to personal defamation. If the appeal fails, Trump could face asset seizures to cover the judgment, as he has already posted a $91.6 million bond to secure the verdict during the appeal process.

Carroll, meanwhile, is promoting her new book, Not My Type: One Woman vs. a President, which details her courtroom experiences and legal victories. The book’s release coincides with the latest rulings, keeping the case in the public eye and fueling discussions about accountability, justice, and the intersection of politics and law.

Why This Case Resonates

The E. Jean Carroll case is more than a legal dispute; it’s a flashpoint in the ongoing debate over power, privilege, and accountability. For many, Carroll’s persistence in pursuing justice against a former and current president symbolizes resilience in the face of powerful opposition. For others, the case raises questions about the fairness of legal processes and the role of political motivations in high-profile lawsuits.

The appeals court’s decision to block DOJ representation ensures that this remains Trump’s personal battle, not a taxpayer-funded defense. It also underscores the judiciary’s role in drawing boundaries around presidential conduct, a topic that remains highly relevant as Trump navigates his second term.

Thought Questions for Readers

1. Do you think the appeals court’s ruling sets an important precedent for distinguishing between a president’s official and personal actions? Why or why not?

2. How might this decision impact public trust in the judicial system, especially in politically charged cases?

3. Should taxpayers ever be responsible for funding legal defenses for elected officials in personal lawsuits? Share your perspective.

4. What role do you believe high-profile cases like this play in shaping public discourse on accountability and justice?

Stay tuned to Boncopia.com for more updates on U.S. politics and legal developments. Share your thoughts in the comments below and join the conversation!