1 August 2026
the news now

Donald Trump Petitions Supreme Court to Overturn $83.3 Million Defamation Verdict

3 sources across 3 countries · Chile · United Kingdom · United States

Who reported this

  • La Tercera Chile · Centre-right · Copesa (Saieh family)
  • Reuters United Kingdom · Centre · Thomson Reuters Corporation
  • Bloomberg United States · Centre · Bloomberg L.P. (Michael Bloomberg)

What the colours mean

  • Left
  • Centre-left
  • Centre
  • Centre-right
  • Right
  • Hatched: the outlet is state-affiliated or state-controlled

Lean is where the outlet sits in its OWN country's politics, never on one global scale.

Political lean is comparable inside one country and not across them, which is why the bar groups by country first. Publicly funded broadcasters are not marked as state-linked.

Ownership is disclosed, never rated.

Donald Trump has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn an $83.3 million jury verdict in a defamation lawsuit brought by writer E. Jean Carroll. The petition seeks to reverse a January 2024 federal jury ruling that found Trump liable for comments made in 2019, during which he denied allegations of sexual assault and questioned Carroll's credibility.

Trump's legal team, including attorneys Robert J. Giuffra and Michael C. Martinich-Sauter, argues that the statements were made while Trump was serving as president and should therefore be protected by presidential immunity. The defense further contends that maintaining the verdict could create a precedent exposing future presidents to civil liabilities for statements made during their tenure.

The request follows an unsuccessful appeal before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which the defense claims rejected the resource on procedural grounds without addressing the core argument of presidential immunity. This is the second time in two months the Supreme Court has been asked to weigh in on Carroll-related litigation; in June, the court declined to review an appeal regarding a separate $5 million verdict from May 2023.

How each side framed it

Centre
Framed the event as a legal request to toss or overturn the jury's financial verdict.
Centre-right
Framed the event around the argument of presidential immunity and its potential constitutional implications for future presidents.

Sources

Faithfulness score: 1.00 (fraction of claims supported by the sources, self-judged).