E. Jean Carroll v. Donald Trump

No. 24-644 (2d Cir. Apr. 29, 2026) · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · April 29, 2026 · No. 24-644

Summary

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied petitions for rehearing en banc following its September 8, 2025 disposition of the appeal in Carroll v. Trump. Several judges concurred in the denial, while Judge Menashi, joined by other judges in whole or in part, dissented and argued that the panel decisions concerning Westfall Act substitution, presidential immunity, jury trial rights, and damages were erroneous. Judge Chin filed a statement respecting the denial.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Writing for the Court
Debra Ann Livingston; Raymond J. Lohier, Jr.; Richard J. Sullivan; Joseph F. Bianco; Michael H. Park; William J. Nardini; Steven J. Menashi; Eunice C. Lee; Beth Robinson; Myrna Pérez; Sarah A. L. Merriam; Maria Araújo Kahn
Jurisdiction
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decision date
April 29, 2026
Docket number
24-644
Procedural posture
Petitions for rehearing en banc following the Second Circuit's prior decisions denying substitution of the United States under the Westfall Act and affirming an $83.3 million judgment against Donald Trump.
Standard of review
Rehearing en banc is governed by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 40(b); it is reserved for questions involving exceptional importance or conflicts with controlling precedent.
Precedential value
The per curiam denial of rehearing en banc is procedural and does not add a new binding merits rule. The separate concurrence and dissent are nonprecedential views.
Parties
Donald Trump, in his personal capacity v. E. Jean Carroll
Disposition
denied

Topics

appellate proceduredefamationconstitutional lawremediesstatutory interpretation

Practice areas

appellate proceduredefamationconstitutional lawremediescivil procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the petitions identified a conflict with controlling precedent or a question of exceptional importance warranting rehearing en banc.
  2. Whether the United States should have been substituted for Trump under the Westfall Act after the case had been tried.
  3. Whether Trump could reassert a presidential-immunity defense in light of Trump v. United States.
  4. Whether Trump was improperly denied a jury trial on liability for the 2019 defamation statements.
  5. Whether the damages award and jury instructions were legally erroneous or constitutionally excessive.

Holdings

  1. The petitions for rehearing en banc were denied because no majority of the active judges favored en banc review.

Key quotations

A poll having been conducted and there being no majority favoring en banc review, the petitions for rehearing en banc are hereby DENIED. (at 1)
the petitions for rehearing do not point to any conflict created by the panel’s opinions with binding precedent of this Circuit, another Circuit, or the Supreme Court (at 2)
a familiar principle cautions that rehearing en banc is "not favored," and is indeed exceedingly rare in our Circuit. (at 2)

Factual background

Carroll alleged that Trump defamed her in June 2019 by denying her accusation that he sexually assaulted her. A jury later awarded Carroll $11 million for a reputation-repair program, $7.3 million in other compensatory damages, and $65 million in punitive damages. The en banc petitions challenged the prior panel rulings concerning Westfall Act substitution, presidential immunity, collateral estoppel, jury-trial rights, jury instructions, duplicative compensatory damages, and punitive damages.

Procedural history

Carroll sued Trump for defamation based on statements he made in 2019 while President. The United States previously sought substitution under the Westfall Act, but the motion was denied; the Second Circuit later affirmed the judgment awarding Carroll $83.3 million and rejected Trump's attempt to reassert presidential immunity. Trump and the United States petitioned for rehearing en banc. After a poll, no majority of active judges favored rehearing, and the petitions were denied.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…