Trump appeals to Supreme Court to dismiss $83 million defamation payout

Added: 2026-05-11

[00:00:00]You're watching the legal breakdown.

[00:00:01]Glenn, we have a major update on a case that I think most people have forgotten.

[00:00:04]That is Donald Trump's uh loss to Eugene Carol for $83.3 million in a defamation case. Can you explain what this update is, >> Brian? This is like the Department of Justice throwing a Hail Mary pass and ain't nobody in the end zone there to catch it. Now, I'm not pretending that Clarence Thomas or, you know, Sammy Alito won't come running out of the tunnel trying to catch the pass for Donald Trump. Okay, enough with the football references. This is really a lastditch attempt to prevent Donald Trump from having to pay out millions of dollars. Remember, he lost not just one, but two defamation cases to EG and Carol. Here's what he's trying to do. He is trying to again try to convince the court that the Department of Justice should be allowed to substitute itself for him Trump in this lawsuit at this 11th hour. Take Trump out of the lawsuit. Let the Department of Justice become the defendant. And if that happens, you know what happens to the whole thing? it gets thrown out because basically the law says you can't successfully sue the federal government, the Department of Justice once a decision has been made that the first defendant, Donald Trump, was acting within the scope of his official duties.

[00:01:28]It is only if a court concludes he's acting within the scope of his official duties that the law, the Westfall Act, allows Donald Trump to be taken out and the Department of Justice to be substituted and then the case gets dismissed. The reason I say this is a Hail Mary pass with nobody standing in the end zone is because Donald Trump tried this in the trial court and he failed. Donald Trump tried it in the Court of Appeals and he failed. And an important procedural footnote here. At one point, the Court of Appeals sent it back to the trial court for continued proceedings in the case, and Donald Trump failed to raise it again, which procedurally, Brian, he had to do if he wanted to preserve the issue. Because not only did the Second Circuit Court of Appeals rule against him, it expressly said, "Oh, and by the way, belt and suspenders, Donald Trump waved the issue by failing to raise it again in the trial court." And it's unbelievable that this is now headed up to the Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court has not agreed to take it for review. But Trump and the Department of Justice are not just working together, but colluding against Eugene Carol, hoping against hope that the Supreme Court one will accept it for review. Two, do something that the facts do not support and that Donald Trump waved previously, and three, they will grant the motion, allow DOJ to substitute itself, and throw the whole damn thing out. Brian, this is wrong on the facts. This is wrong on the law. And this is wrong on the procedure because right now the Supreme Court doesn't even have the ability, the jurisdiction to do this thing that Donald Trump and the DOJ are urging it to do. All of that being said, maybe Clarence Thomas and Sammy Alito are, you know, suiting up, putting on the pads, and getting ready to run into the end zone to see if they can catch that pass for Donald Trump. Glenn, you had mentioned the Westfall Act. Westall Act prevents government employees from being sued for stuff like defamation while they're acting in their official capacities. But Trump wasn't president when this second bout of defamation took place. He had already left office. he decided to defame Egene Carol again after she'd already won a $5 million uh judgment against him. And so, I mean, just on its face, how could you tr how could you claim that the defendant here should be swapped out from Trump to the federal government when Donald Trump wasn't even when he was a private citizen? H like how would that even work on its face?

[00:04:12]>> So, I think it only works for one of the two lawsuits, one of the two judgments that Eugene Carol won against Donald Trump. Because if my memory serves, and it's not perfect, during one of the alleged incidents of defamation, Trump was president. That is the one where he tried to claim he was acting within his official presidential duties when he defamed a woman, he he was alleged to have sexually assaulted. So, there is at least some claim that because he was a government official, they can at least argue the Westfall Act should apply. But the other suit when he was not a president and he defamed her. Again, remember he kept defaming her because nobody can accuse Donald Trump of learning his lesson. That one doesn't even have the Westfall Act claim available, weak though it may be in the other case. So, you know, this is there's a lot of moving pieces here, but you're right in that the only time the Department of Justice can even try to substitute itself for Donald Trump in litigation is when the when the incident occurred while Donald Trump was president. Glenn, is it customary that the United States Supreme Court would ever weigh in on a case like this, a defamation case, uh, regarding somebody who was a private citizen when the violation took place? That that now it's going to be possible that the US Supreme Court takes one of the thousands upon thousands of cases that that are requested for them to hear that one of those may be used uh on Donald Trump's defamation case.

[00:05:47]>> It's possible, but it's certainly not probable. But but the reality is, Brian, any federal case, right, cases in the state court, we're going to set those aside. Any federal case, whether it's defamation or a massive RICO prosecution, you know, any federal case can be accepted for review by the Supreme Court. Typically, only if there are one of two things present. One, there is an important constitutional issue, you know, involved. Maybe it is an issue where there is some uncertainty and the Supreme Court wants to take it and announce a definitive ruling to lay a constitutional question to rest. Or if there are cases that have been decided in separate federal jurisdictions, you know, like one in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals out west and once like here in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. And those two precedents conflict with one another in how they interpret either a law, a federal statute or the constitution. We call that a split in the circuits. That is an instance where the Supreme Court would ordinarily want to exercise jurisdiction because all of the federal uh circuits have to kind of be guided by one unified precedent or principle and that's when the Supreme Court might get involved. As I see it, neither of those two things are at play in the Eugene Carol defamation case. So I I see I think it's very unlikely that even this Supreme Court compromised though it seems to be at times would exercise jurisdiction over this case and even more importantly this issue which really is not a live issue because neither the facts nor the law support it. And from the procedural point of view, it was waved in the court below. So they don't even really have anything to take up and decide because this issue was waved previously. So I think it extraordinarily unlikely that the Supreme Court will accept review.

[00:07:52]Uh, but again, I'm always going to throw the caveat out there that this Supreme Court has done things that the Constitution doesn't seem to permit, like granting a president absolute immunity to violate the laws of our nation, victimize the American people, and do it without running the risk of being held accountable, being prosecuted. That's kind of the opposite of what the United States Constitution provides. You know, a president shall take care to faithfully execute the laws of the country. So all bets are off with respect to, you know, putting any money on what this Supreme Court will do >> now that this thing is may or may not be headed to the US Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court denies uh Trump's request to have them hear this case, is that it?

[00:08:37]Is that the end of the line? Because this thing has been going on for the better part of a decade at this point.

[00:08:42]And so in terms of actually getting a final resolution here at the hands of somebody who is an expert uh at dilatory tactics in the court system and that's Donald Trump. Is this the legitimate true end of the line?

[00:08:57]>> Yeah. If there's any good news in what seems to be the endless court challenges mounted by Donald Trump anytime he loses a case, here is the good news. the there will be no further appeals. If the Supreme Court finally says with respect to both of these cases, done. We're not accepting either one for review, it's over. And here is the good news for Eugene Carol. Donald Trump was made to pay into the court. Basically put up a money bond. And an interesting tidbit here, Eugene Carol didn't oppose these endless delays and appeals. But you know what her lawyers did insist on? They said that's fine as long as he continues to pay into the bond that he posted which will you know guarantee that the money judgment will be paid at the end of all of these appeals. The Egene Carol's lawyer said we don't oppose as long as he also has to post all of the interest that is acrewing on that more than $80 million that a jury awarded Eene Carol. So, it looks like Eugene Carol is perhaps very close to finally having that money judgment satisfied.

[00:10:14]>> All right. Well, we will of course stay on top of this if and when we get some news about uh whether or not the the Supreme Court is going to take this thing up. For those who are watching right now, if you'd like to stay on top of this story and other legal news, the best way to do that is to subscribe to both of our channels. I'm going to put those links right here on the screen and also in the post description of this video. Uh, again, it's 100% free to subscribe, but a great way to support our work and independent media more broadly. So, if you're not yet subscribed, please go ahead and hit subscribe on both of our channels. I'm Brian Teller Cohen, >> and I'm Glenn Kersner.

[00:10:44]>> You're watching the Legal Breakdown.