Carroll v. Trump

Background

A jury previously found that Donald J. Trump had defamed E. Jean Carroll in two statements issued from the White House on June 21 and 22, 2019. The opinion states that the jury awarded Carroll $17.3 million in compensatory damages and $65 million in punitive damages. Later, when discussing the compensatory award, the opinion refers to $18.3 million, consisting of $11 million for reputational harm and $7.3 million for other compensatory harm. The opinion does not explain this difference.

Trump moved for a new trial or, alternatively, for judgment as a matter of law. A new-trial motion asks the court to set aside the jury’s verdict and hold another trial. Judgment as a matter of law asks the court to overturn the verdict because the evidence legally could not support it.

New-Trial Motion

Trump argued that the court improperly excluded evidence and instructed the jury about common-law malice. The court explained that New York common-law malice concerns a defendant’s motive toward the plaintiff, including deliberate intent to injure or conduct showing hatred, ill will, spite, or reckless disregard of the plaintiff’s rights. The court distinguished this from constitutional, or actual, malice, which concerns whether the defendant knew a statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for its truth.

The court rejected Trump’s argument that punitive damages were available only if a jury found that his sole motive was to injure Carroll. It concluded that New York law requires proof of common-law malice for punitive damages but does not require common-law malice to be the defendant’s only motive. The court also concluded that a prior state appellate decision relied on by Trump did not establish a contrary rule for punitive damages.

Trump also argued that Carroll should have been required to prove punitive damages by clear and convincing evidence rather than by a preponderance of the evidence. The court held that the binding New York rule for punitive damages in defamation cases is the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard, meaning that the fact must be more likely true than not true. The court therefore found no error in its jury instruction.

Compensatory Damages

The court rejected Trump’s argument that the compensatory damages were excessive and represented only ordinary emotional distress. It stated that the jury could consider the alleged effects of Trump’s attacks on Carroll’s career, reputation, health, safety, and emotional well-being. The opinion states that the statements reached between 85 million and 104 million views and compares the award with damages upheld in other New York defamation cases.

The court concluded that the compensatory damages were not excessive under New York law.

Punitive Damages

The court also upheld the punitive damages award against Trump’s constitutional challenge. It applied three guideposts: the reprehensibility of the conduct, the relationship between the harm and the punitive award, and the difference between the award and penalties in comparable cases.

The court concluded that the jury could find Trump’s conduct exceptionally reprehensible because he used the presidency to make repeated public attacks on Carroll, threatened that she would “pay dearly,” continued attacking her after a jury and the court had found a similar statement defamatory, and reached millions of people. The court held that the punitive damages award satisfied constitutional requirements.

Judgment as a Matter of Law

Trump argued that the evidence did not establish that his June 2019 statements caused Carroll’s injuries because some harm might have resulted from an earlier article in The Cut and a related White House denial. The court rejected that argument. It stated that the jury and/or court had found the June statements false, defamatory, and made with both actual and common-law malice; that the statements had been viewed by at least 85 million to 104 million people; and that Carroll testified about their effect on her.

The court held that causation was a question for the jury because the trial included competing evidence and possible inferences. It concluded that the evidence did not justify overturning the verdict as a matter of law.

Disposition

The court denied Trump’s motion for a new trial and denied his motion for judgment as a matter of law. The opinion does not state that either motion was denied with or without prejudice.