In a recent decision, U.S. District Court Judge Lewis Kaplan rejected former President Donald Trump’s request to delay the payment of over $83 million in damages to writer E. Jean Carroll for defamation. The request for a stay came 25 days after the jury’s verdict and was made without the provision of any security, which is typically required to halt the enforcement of a judgment.
Judge Kaplan, in his concise order, emphasized the necessity of allowing Carroll an opportunity to respond before any stay could be considered, particularly an unsecured one. This decision underscores the court’s commitment to ensuring that the plaintiff’s rights are not overlooked in the post-trial proceedings.
Kaplan said Carroll must file a motion by Thursday. Trump will also have a chance to respond.
On Friday, attorneys for Trump requested the stay in Manhattan federal court. After a five-day trial in January, a jury awarded Carroll $83.3 million for defamation after Trump said that he did not rape her.
The legal contention arose from Carroll’s allegations that Trump sexually assaulted her in the mid-1990s, which Trump has consistently denied. Carroll went public with her accusations in a 2019 book, leading to Trump’s vehement dismissal of her claims and subsequent defamation by labeling her a liar. Carroll’s lawsuit contends that Trump’s public denials not only damaged her reputation but also inflicted emotional distress upon her.
Trump’s legal defense has challenged the jury’s award as “excessive,” claiming it contravenes the U.S. Constitution. However, Carroll’s attorneys maintain that Trump’s denials were not only unfounded but were also maliciously aimed at discrediting her. This legal tussle is part of a broader confrontation between Carroll and Trump, with an additional defamation lawsuit filed by Carroll still pending.
This development marks a significant moment in the ongoing legal saga, highlighting the complexities of defamation law and the challenges of balancing free speech with the protection of individual reputation. As the case progresses, it remains a focal point in discussions about accountability, particularly for high-profile individuals, in the face of serious allegations.