Connect with us

Politics

Trump requests E Jean Carroll $83M judgment stay for pending Supreme Court action on presidential immunity

Published

on

Trump requests E Jean Carroll M judgment stay for pending Supreme Court action on presidential immunity

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

President Donald Trump’s lawyers are requesting a stay of the $83.3 million judgement in E. Jean Carroll’s defamation case while he seeks Supreme Court review on the grounds of presidential immunity, according to a new filing late Tuesday night.

The Trump request for a stay is unopposed by Carroll’s legal team if Trump increases the bond by roughly $7.46 million to cover post-judgment interest on the original judgment that has been under appeal.

“This Court should now stay the mandate to allow President Trump to present important questions relating to, without limitation, Presidential immunity and the Westfall Act to the Supreme Court,” the filing from Trump’s presidential lawyer Justin Smith read.

“Carroll does not oppose this motion.”

Advertisement

FEDERAL APPEALS COURT UPHOLDS $83.3M E. JEAN CARROLL JUDGMENT AGAINST TRUMP

The Supreme Court is set to review President Donald Trump’s petition to consider the verdict in the E. Jean Carroll case. (Al Drago/Bloomberg/Getty Images; Alex Kent/Getty Images)

The Westfall Act is a federal law that protects government employees from being personally sued for common law torts like negligence or defamation committed while they were doing their jobs. Carroll originally sued for defamation in November 2019 during Trump’s first term.

Essentially, the referenced law acts as a legal “shield” by shifting the target of a lawsuit from an individual person to the United States government itself.

The 24-page filing with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit signals Trump’s intention to ask the Supreme Court to review where Trump is immune for this May 2023 judgment delivered as Trump was weighing another presidential primary run before 2024 and facing myriad legal cases under then-President Joe Biden.

Advertisement

SUPREME COURT TO REVIEW TRUMP PETITION ON E JEAN CARROLL JUDGMENT

President Donald Trump is making the case he is immune or not liable for E. Jean Carroll’s $83.3 million defamation case brought in November 2019 and the judgment brought down in May 2023. (Getty Images)

Trump’s lawyers argue there is a “reasonable probability” the Supreme Court will take the case and a “fair prospect” the justices will reverse the lower court. They point to a dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc in which three Second Circuit judges identified what Trump’s team describes as legal errors involving presidential immunity and the Westfall Act.

“Absent a stay, President Trump will suffer ongoing irreparable harm due to violation of his right to immunity from this defamation suit for his official statements as President of the United States of America,” Smith argued, adding Trump may face proceedings to execute on the $83.3 million judgment before the Supreme Court has reviewed the case.

“President Trump respectfully asks the Court to stay the mandate until the Supreme Court’s final disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari,” the filing stated.

Advertisement

APPEALS COURT DEALS TRUMP BLOW IN CHALLENGE TO E JEAN CARROLL VERDICT

“There is a ‘fair prospect’ that the SupremeCourt will reverse the Panel’s erroneous decisions that Presidential immunity and the Westfall Act were both waived,” Trump’s lawyers continued. “Issuing the mandate and permitting lower court proceedings to move forward during Supreme Court review of these significant questions would ‘eviscerate the immunity [the Supreme Court has] recognized,’ as well as create a likely inability to recover funds if the Supreme Court reverses, as it should.”

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The motion was filed Tuesday by Smith of the James Otis Law Group.

Smith was nominated by Trump to be a United States Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit in early March, and the Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings on his nomination April 15.

Advertisement

Politics

Video: Why Were These C.E.O.s in Beijing With Trump?

Published

on

Video: Why Were These C.E.O.s in Beijing With Trump?

new video loaded: Why Were These C.E.O.s in Beijing With Trump?

Some of America’s most powerful C.E.O.s accompanied President Trump to Beijing during his summit with President Xi Jinping of China. Our reporter Ana Swanson explains what they were hoping to gain from the trip.

By Ana Swanson, Nour Idriss, Nikolay Nikolov and James Surdam

May 15, 2026

Continue Reading

Politics

Senator John Kennedy introduces America to ‘Margaret,’ his elliptical trainer named after Thatcher

Published

on

Senator John Kennedy introduces America to ‘Margaret,’ his elliptical trainer named after Thatcher

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Margaret Thatcher once ran Britain. John Kennedy’s “Margaret” mostly runs him into the ground.

Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., is going viral after posting a tongue-in-cheek workout video introducing followers to “Margaret” — his elliptical trainer named after former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher — while wearing a red bandanna and speaking directly to the camera from his Louisiana carport.

“Hey X, I have somebody I’d like you to meet,” Kennedy says at the start of the minute-long video posted to social media Friday.

“This is Margaret. Margaret is my elliptical trainer. I named Margaret after Margaret Thatcher because both kick butt and take names.”

Advertisement

ERIC SWALWELL’S ‘CRINGE’ WORKOUT VIDEO MOCKED FOR BENCHING LIGHT WEIGHT

Senator John Kennedy, R-La., posted the video showing his unconventional at-home workout routine with elliptical “Margaret” to social media channels Friday. (@SenJohnKennedy via X)

Kennedy goes on to explain that “Margaret” lives outside under the carport for three reasons: the machine is too heavy to move, his wife “won’t let” him bring it inside and because he enjoys getting in a workout during Louisiana summers.

The Senator said he enjoys working outside during Louisiana summers, a detail that drew disbelief from many viewers familiar with the state’s famously brutal heat and humidity.

“As you can see, Margaret, my elliptical trainer, is out here under my carport in Louisiana,” Kennedy says. “After Margaret kicks my butt, I look for air conditioning.”

Advertisement

The surreal, self-aware clip quickly drew thousands of reactions online, with users roasting Kennedy’s bandanna look while also praising the senator’s everyman personality.

SEN KENNEDY PRAISES FETTERMAN AS A ‘TOTAL BANGER,’ WHO ‘DOESN’T GIVE A DAMN’ ABOUT ANGERING LIBERALS

Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., talks to reporters in the basement of the U.S. Capitol on July 31, 2025, as Senate lawmakers work to finish legislative business before the August recess. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

“You are rocking the dadgum crap outta that bandana,” one user wrote. “I thought you were representing the Bloods for a minute. Tell Margaret I think she’s cute but evil.”

Others praised Kennedy’s personality and down-home delivery style.

Advertisement

“You are a gem to us normal folk Mr. Kennedy. Live long and prosper!” one supporter posted.

“Senator Kennedy is that kind of Southerner that makes you feel you’re sitting on the front porch having some bit of common sense enlighten you in that poetic Southern way,” another wrote.

The Louisiana Republican has long cultivated a folksy, humorous public image that often breaks through online with colorful one-liners and unconventional social media moments.

Sen. John Kennedy speaks before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington on March 21, 2022. (J. Scott Applewhite/Reuters)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Advertisement

Kennedy ended the video with a line that only added to the internet’s fascination.

“My work here is done,” he said. “And I can see myself out.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Supreme Court turns away Virginia Democrats seeking to reinstate new voting map

Published

on

Supreme Court turns away Virginia Democrats seeking to reinstate new voting map

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday turned down an appeal from Virginia Democrats whose new voter-approved state election map was canceled by the state’s Supreme Court.

The justices made no comment, and the legal outcome came as no surprise.

The U.S. Supreme Court has no authority to review or reverse rulings by state judges interpreting their state’s constitution — unless the decision turned on federal law or the U.S. Constitution.

But the Virginia ruling came as a political shock, particularly after 3 million voters had cast ballots and narrowly approved a new election map that would favor Democrats in 10 of its 11 congressional districts.

That would have represented an increase of four seats for Democrats in the House of Representatives.

Advertisement

Even worse for Democrats, the court setback in Virginia came a week after the Supreme Court’s ruling in a Louisiana case had bolstered Republicans.

In a 6-3 decision, the justices reinterpreted the Voting Rights Act and freed Republican-controlled states in the South to dismantle districts that were drawn to favor Black Democrats.

In the two weeks since then, the GOP has flipped seven districts in Tennessee, Alabama, Louisiana and Florida.

The Virginia Supreme Court decision pointed to a procedural flaw that turned on the definition of an “election.”

To amend the state Constitution, Virginia lawmakers must adopt the proposal twice — once before a “general election” and a second time after the election. It is then submitted to the voters.

Advertisement

Last fall, Democrats proposed to amend the state Constitution to permit a mid-decade redistricting.

However, by a 4-3 vote, the state justices said the General Assembly flubbed the first approval because it took place on Oct. 31 of last year, just five days before the election.

By then, they said, about 40% of the voters had cast early ballots.

In defense of the Legislature, the state’s attorneys said the proposed amendment was approved before election day, which complies with the state Constitution.

But the majority explained “the noun ‘election’ must be distinguished from the noun phrase ‘election day.’ ”

Advertisement

It reasoned that because early voters had already cast ballots before the constitutional amendment was first adopted, the proposal was not approved before the election.

The dissenters said the election took place on “election day” and the proposal had been adopted before that time.

The state’s lawyers adopted that view in their appeal and argued that under federal law, the election takes place on election day.

But the Supreme Court turned away the appeal with no comment.

The result is that a state amendment that won approval twice before both houses of the Legislature and in a statewide vote was judged to have failed.

Advertisement

The state says it will use the current map, which had elected Democrats to the House in six districts and Republicans in five.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending