Will Trump be forced to pay all $83 million in defamation case? Legal experts weigh in

A federal jury ordered former President Donald Trump to pay $83 million in damages to writer E. Jean Carroll in a New York defamation case. But he may not be on the hook for the whole sum, according to legal experts.

On Jan. 26, the jury found that Carroll — an advice columnist — had suffered reputational harm after Trump claimed she had fabricated her sexual assault allegations against him.

As a result, the jurors awarded her $18 million in compensation for her lost credibility and another $65 million in punitive damages.

Trump, who has vowed to appeal the verdict, will have the option to pay the amount in full to the court, which would hold onto the funds during the appeals process, according to The New York Times. He could also receive a bond, which would allow him to pay only a portion of the total amount up front.

The appeals process could result in a reduction in damages owed by Trump, though a sizable scaleback may be unlikely, legal experts told McClatchy News.

The appeals process

If an appeals court decides the judgment is unreasonable, they can order a new trial just in order to reach a new judgment from a jury on damages, Don Herzog, a professor at the University of Michigan Law School, told McClatchy News.

“The jury is entitled to some deference, and the court has to be convinced that no reasonable jury could have made the award they did,” Herzog said. “Put differently, the judge can always think, ‘Well, I would have awarded more (or less), but I can’t say your number is unreasonable.’”

In such a trial, Trump’s attorneys would likely zero in on the $65 million in punitive damages, John Goldberg, a professor at Harvard Law School, told McClatchy News.

“Mr. Trump’s appellate lawyers almost certainly will argue, first, that his misconduct wasn’t egregious enough to allow for ANY punitive damages,” Goldberg said.

This argument is considered a long shot, Goldberg said, and if it’s unsuccessful, Trump’s legal team would likely contend that the jury’s award is unjustly large.

“The appellate court will have to decide, in essence, whether $65 million is so out of proportion to the gravity of Mr. Trump’s misconduct as to indicate that the jury acted out of passion or prejudice toward Mr. Trump,” Goldberg said.

The verdict

“It is not common for courts to fiddle with jury awards,” Herzog said. “The general story in this country is, that’s rare.”

Echoing this sentiment, Goldberg said, “While the chances of getting an appellate court to lower the amount of the punitive award are better than the chances of getting them to throw it out entirely, the odds of a significant reduction on appeal are probably not in Mr. Trump’s favor.”

This means that, at the end of a drawn-out appeals process, Trump will likely still have to hand over a sizable sum to Carroll.

Not all legal experts were in agreement on this point, though.

Robert Post, a professor at Yale Law School, told McClatchy News that appeals courts regularly reduce damages, particularly punitive damages.

“It doesn’t always happen, but it happens a lot,” Post said.

Whatever the appeals court decides, its ruling may not come anytime soon as opinions can take over a year to be reached.

Is abortion access a winning issue for Biden in 2024? Democratic strategists weigh in

Trump hints at vice presidential pick. How are running mates usually selected?

Should Trump be immune from criminal prosecution? What Americans said in a new poll