admin
The Justice Department has just filed a new appeal asking the Supreme Court to step in on the E. Jean Carroll defamation verdict. The move asks the high court to allow the United States to substitute itself for President Trump under the Westfall Act. If the Court takes the case, it could wipe out the $83.3 million judgment or at least decide whether a president can be sued for certain statements while in office.
DOJ Asks Supreme Court to Step In
What changed and who filed
Assistant Attorney General Brett A. Shumate signed the DOJ filing that asks the Supreme Court to review the Second Circuit rulings. The government revived a scope-of-employment certification under the Westfall Act and told the appeals court it will press the issue before the justices. The DOJ bluntly argued that “Absent this Court’s intervention, the sitting President is facing nearly a hundred million dollars of personal liability for conduct that was well within the scope of his federal office.” That is the specific, new development that matters here: DOJ is now asking the Supreme Court to decide whether the U.S. can be substituted and whether that substitution bars the defamation claims.
Westfall Act and FTCA: The Legal Hail Mary
The legal mechanics are simple to state and hard to digest. The Westfall Act lets the Justice Department certify that a federal employee was acting within the scope of their job. If the certification stands, the United States replaces the individual defendant and the case goes under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). But here is the kicker: the FTCA has an explicit carve-out for libel and slander. In short, if substitution is allowed, defamation claims usually die on the vine. The Second Circuit balked at the timing and said the substitution was too late, with Judge Denny Chin noting no other defendant would get such a late move. The DOJ is now asking the Supreme Court to sort out that procedural fight and the bigger question about scope and immunity.
Why this matters for the presidency and the rule of law
This is not just about one money judgment. It is about whether a sitting president can face huge personal liability for statements made while doing his job. Conservatives who care about a strong, functioning executive should want clarity. You cannot have presidents afraid to speak or act, nor can you allow unlimited personal suits tied to every public statement. At the same time, victims deserve a fair path to justice. The smart move is to let the Supreme Court settle the legal rule so future cases are not decided by timing or tactical filings. If the Court rejects substitution or immunity, the $83.3 million judgment survives. If it accepts substitution, the FTCA exception most likely kills the defamation claim. Either outcome has wide impact.
What to watch next
The Supreme Court will consider whether to take the case at its certiorari conferences. If the justices grant review, both sides will brief the big legal questions — scope-of-employment, timeliness of certification, and presidential immunity. Expect vigorous opposition from Carroll’s lawyers, and expect headlines and hot takes from both sides. My view is straightforward: the DOJ did what any responsible government should do. It asked the high court to issue a clear rule on whether a president can be personally bankrupted for words tied to official duties. That is a question the country needs answered, and the Supreme Court should not dodge it.
