President Donald Trump attends a meeting with the Fraternal Order of Police in the State Dinning Room of the White House, Thursday, June 5, 2025, in Washington (AP Photo/Alex Brandon).
Chalk up two losses in one week for President Donald Trump at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in the long-running defamation case brought — and won — by writer E. Jean Carroll.
On Wednesday, a three-judge panel rebuked efforts to have the public pay for Trump”s appeal of the $83 million judgment in Carroll’s favor – rejecting a claim under the Westfall Act, a law which can force the U.S. Department of Justice to step into the shoes of government officials sued for torts committed within the scope of their official duties.
On Thursday, the 45th and 47th president filed a joint motion with the DOJ asking the New York City-based court to put the case in abeyance – effectively requesting a full-on pause in all ongoing proceedings until the Westfall Act decision is fully appealed.
On Friday, the appellate court nixed that request as well.
The Wednesday decision by Senior U.S. Circuit Judge Denny Chin, a Barack Obama appointee, and U.S. Circuit Judges Sarah Merriam and Maria Araújo Kahn, both Joe Biden appointees, was particularly terse.
And therein was the rub for the 45th and 47th president.
The court’s four-sentence order “did not contain any reasoning” but instead noted it “will issue an opinion detailing its reasoning in due course” while keeping oral arguments in the broader appeal slated for June 24, Trump’s 14-page abeyance motion complained.
To hear the government and the president tell it, while oral arguments were scheduled months ago, the conclusory order on the Westfall Act issue coming just days before the hearing is unfair and prejudicial.
“The United States and President Trump are entitled to immediate review of the panel’s erroneous Westfall Act decision by this Court en banc and, if necessary, by the Supreme Court,” the joint abeyance motion argued. “By not publishing its reasoning, the panel has effectively denied the United States and President Trump the opportunity to seek immediate appellate review of the basis of its decision, including prior to oral argument of the appeal at which the United States should be the defendant.”
Another major argument raised in the motion was the public interest – seeking to vindicate the general idea of immunity for government officials. Generally, Trump and the DOJ said, the idea behind immunity is “to safeguard the public interest in having responsible governmental employees faithfully carry out their duties without fear of protracted litigation in unfounded damage suits.”
‘This is especially true when the federal employee is the President,” the motion goes on. “Staying proceedings here to resolve important immunity questions raised by the President is certainly in the public interest.”
In not quite as terse fashion, but in another relatively short order, the appellate court dismissed the government’s and president’s concerns and denied the request to stay the proceedings in the case.
“In assessing whether a stay is warranted, we consider four factors,” the court writes. “These factors do not support a stay in this case.”
The court explains its reasoning, at length:
One: The Appellant has not made a strong showing of likely success on the merits. This panel has already denied the motion to substitute. Two: The Appellant will not be irreparably harmed by proceeding with oral argument as scheduled. The Appellant has been represented on this appeal by the James Otis Law Group, LLC. That firm filed the briefs in this appeal, and a member of the firm appeared in the appeal (as substitute counsel) on March 26, 2025. If this Court’s ruling on the motion to substitute is eventually set aside for any reason, the appeal may be reargued by new counsel. Three: The Appellee will be injured by further delay in this matter, which has already been pending for more than five years. Four: “[W]here the public interest lies” may be vigorously debated in this situation, but on balance, the public interest would not be served by further delay. Moreover, even if that factor were to support a stay, it would not outweigh the other factors.
“Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion is DENIED,” the order concludes. “Oral argument will proceed as scheduled.”
