Trump’s Legal Bill Blocked

By Darius Spearman (africanelements)

Support African Elements at patreon.com/africanelements and hear recent news in a single playlist. Additionally, you can gain early access to ad-free video content.

Trump’s Taxpayer Bill Blocked

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit has blocked Donald Trump’s attempt to have American taxpayers cover his $83 million legal bill to E. Jean Carroll for defamation (atlantablackstar.com). This decision marks a significant moment in the ongoing legal battles involving the current president. The court rejected Trump’s appeal under the Westfall Act of 1988, a law designed to protect federal employees from certain tort lawsuits while they are engaged in their official duties (atlantablackstar.com).

The Westfall Act, formally known as the Federal Employees Liability Reform and Tort Compensation Act of 1988, grants federal employees immunity from personal liability for common law torts, such as defamation, committed within the scope of their employment. Its main purpose is to substitute the United States as the defendant in place of the individual employee, shifting the financial burden of such lawsuits from the employee to the federal government (zuckerman.com). This means that if a federal employee is sued for an action taken as part of their official duties, the lawsuit is treated as if it were brought against the U.S. government instead of the employee personally (zuckerman.com). The Act aims to protect federal employees from personal liability for torts committed while performing their official duties (zuckerman.com).

The Scope of Presidential Duties

Trump and the Justice Department argued that his denials of Carroll’s allegations in 2019 were made within the scope of his presidential duties and should therefore be covered by the Westfall Act (atlantablackstar.com). “Scope of employment” refers to the range of activities an employee is authorized to perform as part of their job. For a president, determining what falls within this scope for the Westfall Act is complex and has been a subject of legal debate, especially concerning statements made while in office. Generally, actions are considered within the scope of employment if they are related to the duties and responsibilities of the office, even if performed improperly or maliciously. However, personal conduct or statements unrelated to official duties would typically fall outside this scope.

The argument in the Trump defamation cases was whether his public statements denying the allegations were part of his official duties as president, as he was addressing matters that had become public and were related to his conduct while in office. The question of whether a president’s actions fall within the “scope of employment” for Westfall Act purposes is a critical legal inquiry (zuckerman.com). The D.C. Court of Appeals has been involved in clarifying the scope-of-employment law in the context of the Westfall Act, particularly concerning presidential actions (zuckerman.com). The Westfall Act’s application hinges on whether the actions were performed within the “outer perimeters of the office” (zuckerman.com).

Court’s Reasoning and Legal Terms

The Appeals Court detailed its decision in a 23-page opinion, stating that the motion was “statutorily barred,” that both Trump and the government “waived their rights” by filing for relief at the wrong time, and that “principles of equity warrant denying the belated motion” (atlantablackstar.com). In a legal context, “statutorily barred” means that a claim or action cannot proceed because a specific law prevents it. This often relates to deadlines, such as a statute of limitations, which sets a maximum time after an event within which legal proceedings may be initiated. If the deadline is missed, the claim is “statutorily barred.”

“Waived their rights” means that a party has voluntarily given up a legal right or privilege. This can happen explicitly, through an agreement, or implicitly, through actions or inaction, such as failing to raise an argument or file a motion within a prescribed timeframe. In the context of the Appeals Court denying a motion, if Trump and the government “waived their rights” by filing late, it means they forfeited their opportunity to make a particular argument or request because they did not adhere to the court’s procedural deadlines. The oral argument in the Carroll v. Trump case indicated that the parties had not adequately briefed or helped the court understand the procedural context of the scope of employment question under the Westfall Act (zuckerman.com).

Understanding Defamation and Damages

Defamation is the act of making a false statement about someone that harms their reputation. It can be spoken (slander) or written (libel). To prove defamation, a plaintiff generally must show that the statement was false, that it was published or communicated to a third party, that it caused harm to their reputation, and that the speaker acted with a certain level of fault. For public figures, this often requires proving “actual malice” (papers.ssrn.com). In the E. Jean Carroll cases, she sued Donald Trump for defamation, alleging that his public statements denying her sexual assault claims and disparaging her character were false and damaged her reputation.

The distinction between an “$83 million legal bill” and “$83 million damages” is crucial. The “$83 million damages” refers to the amount of money a court or jury has ordered one party, in this case, Donald Trump, to pay to another party, E. Jean Carroll, as compensation for harm caused by defamation. This figure represents the financial judgment against him. A “legal bill,” on the other hand, refers to the costs incurred by a party for legal services, such as attorney fees, court filing fees, and other litigation expenses. While these can be substantial, they are separate from the damages awarded by a court. In the context of the Carroll case, the $83 million is the amount Trump was ordered to pay Carroll in damages, not his own legal expenses (zuckerman.com).

The Role of a $91 Million Bond

In 2023, a jury found Trump liable for defamation and sexual abuse of E. Jean Carroll, awarding her $5 million (atlantablackstar.com). Then, in 2024, Trump was again found liable for defamation against Carroll for comments made after the first lawsuit, resulting in $83 million in damages (atlantablackstar.com). Trump posted a $91 million bond while appealing this verdict (atlantablackstar.com). When a party loses a civil lawsuit and is ordered to pay damages, they often have the right to appeal the verdict. However, to prevent the winning party from immediately collecting the judgment while the appeal is pending, the losing party is typically required to post a “supersedeas bond.”

This bond, often for the full judgment amount plus interest and sometimes legal fees, serves as a guarantee that if the appeal is unsuccessful, the judgment will be paid. Posting a bond effectively pauses the enforcement of the judgment during the appeal process. The $91 million bond in Trump’s case likely includes the $83 million defamation damages plus additional amounts for interest and potential legal costs, ensuring that E. Jean Carroll would be paid if his appeal fails (zuckerman.com).

The Federal Tort Claims Act and Presidential Immunity

The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) is a U.S. federal law that waives the sovereign immunity of the United States for certain torts committed by federal employees acting within the scope of their employment. Before the FTCA, individuals generally could not sue the federal government for the wrongful acts of its employees. The FTCA allows citizens to sue the U.S. government in federal court for damages caused by the negligence or wrongful acts of federal employees. The Westfall Act is an amendment to the FTCA, specifically addressing personal liability for federal employees by substituting the U.S. government as the defendant in place of the employee, thereby channeling such claims through the FTCA framework (digitalcommons.law.wne.edu).

The application of the Westfall Act to presidents is a complex and somewhat novel legal area, particularly concerning statements made while in office. While the Act generally applies to federal employees, the unique constitutional status of the President introduces specific challenges. Historically, the Westfall Act’s application to presidents has gone “uncontested” in some prior cases, suggesting a precedent for its potential applicability (zuckerman.com). However, the specific circumstances of the Trump defamation cases, particularly regarding whether his public denials of private allegations fall within the “scope of employment” for a president, have made this a significant legal gray area, leading to extensive litigation and appeals to clarify this point. The debate highlights the tension between protecting a president’s ability to perform official duties and holding them accountable for personal conduct (papers.ssrn.com).

Broader Legal Accountability

The E. Jean Carroll defamation cases have highlighted the ongoing legal accountability faced by Donald Trump since leaving office (danielrschramm.substack.com). These cases are significant within the broader landscape of presidential accountability because they test the limits of legal immunity for actions taken while in office, particularly after leaving the presidency. While presidents enjoy certain immunities for official acts, these cases demonstrate that such protections are not absolute, especially concerning private conduct or statements deemed outside the scope of official duties. The outcomes underscore that former presidents can face civil lawsuits for actions taken during their tenure, contributing to a growing body of jurisprudence on post-presidency legal liability (democracydocket.com).

This contrasts with criminal immunity arguments, which are also being tested in other cases, but collectively, these legal challenges establish precedents for holding former occupants of the highest office accountable under the law. The E. Jean Carroll verdicts demonstrate that accountability can extend to charges of defamation, challenging the idea that “rhetorical hyperbole” would always insulate him from liability (danielrschramm.substack.com). The cases against Trump, including the Stormy Daniels hush money trial, are viewed by some as tests of the constitution and the nation, aiming to hold a past leader to account for his handling of office (jaylale.substack.com). Trump has made multiple attempts to move cases, such as the hush money case, to federal court, but these requests have been denied (hermit.cc).

Public and Political Reactions

The public and political reactions to the E. Jean Carroll defamation rulings, including sentiments like “MAGA is furious” and distrust in courts, reflect a broader polarization within American society regarding legal accountability for political figures. These reactions highlight how legal outcomes, particularly those involving high-profile individuals like former presidents, are often interpreted through partisan lenses. For supporters, adverse rulings can be seen as politically motivated attacks or evidence of a biased justice system, fueling distrust in institutions. For critics, the rulings may be viewed as a necessary affirmation of the rule of law and equal justice.

The social implications include deepened political divides, challenges to the legitimacy of judicial processes, and a reinforcement of existing narratives about political persecution or accountability, depending on one’s political alignment. There is a sentiment among some that the courts cannot be trusted and that Trump should proceed regardless of legal outcomes, with some even suggesting he has military support (sbcurrent.com).

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Darius Spearman has been a professor of Black Studies at San Diego City College since 2007. He is the author of several books, including Between The Color Lines: A History of African Americans on the California Frontier Through 1890. You can visit Darius online at africanelements.org.