2026-04-29T15:42:53.134Z / 美国有线电视新闻网（CNN）
作者：卡拉·斯坎内尔
发布时间：2026年4月29日，美国东部时间上午11:42
迈克尔·M·圣地亚哥/盖蒂图片社/档案照片
E·让·卡罗尔于2024年1月26日在纽约曼哈顿联邦法院结束对唐纳德·特朗普的民事诽谤审判后离开法庭。
美国一家存在分歧的联邦上诉法院表示，其全体法官不会重审唐纳德·特朗普总统针对向杂志专栏作家E·让·卡罗尔支付8300万美元陪审团裁决的上诉。
该裁决为特朗普向美国最高法院提起上诉铺平了道路，他将就总统豁免权问题提出上诉，而最高法院在2024年已就此作出具有里程碑意义的判决。
美国第二巡回上诉法院的多数法官以分歧裁决驳回了特朗普要求由全体法官“合议庭”审理其上诉的动议。
这一判决是卡罗尔与特朗普之间长达六年法律战的最新转折，双方已进行两场民事审判，其中一场特朗普曾短暂出庭作证。
特朗普法律团队的发言人告诉CNN：“美国民众支持特朗普总统，要求立即终止对我们司法系统非法、激进的政治武器化，并迅速驳回所有政治迫害，包括卡罗尔骗局这一由民主党资助的非法闹剧。司法部长已认定，由于卡罗尔的虚假指控基于总统的官方行为，司法部必须接手为这一事件辩护。”“特朗普总统及其法律团队将对这一判决提起上诉，因为他将继续打击并持续击败自由派的法律战。”
相关报道 E. Jean Carroll leaves Manhattan Federal Court in New York, following the conclusion of her civil defamation trial against Donald Trump on January 26, 2024. Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images/File 特朗普要求最高法院推翻其对E·让·卡罗尔实施性侵犯并诽谤的裁决 阅读时长2分钟
卡罗尔的律师罗伯塔·卡普兰也发表了声明：
“E·让·卡罗尔热切希望这起2019年最初提起的诉讼能够结束，这样她终于可以获得正义。”
特朗普曾要求全体法官重审一个上诉小组在9月份驳回的论点。该小组维持了陪审团的裁决，认定特朗普在2022年第一任期内诽谤卡罗尔，当时他否认了她的性侵犯指控，称她不是自己喜欢的类型，并暗示她编造指控是为了推销新书。陪审团最终判给卡罗尔8300万美元的损害赔偿。
2023年，另一个陪审团认定特朗普对1990年代中期在纽约一家百货商店发生的涉嫌性侵犯以及2019年他否认此事的言论负有性虐待和诽谤责任。该陪审团判给卡罗尔500万美元的损害赔偿。
特朗普曾要求最高法院审理他对这500万美元判决的上诉，但法院尚未作出决定。在该案中，特朗普称审判法官存在失误，允许另外两名女性就其涉嫌的性侵犯行为作证，并允许在法庭上播放特朗普对《走进好莱坞》的“热麦”评论。
在当前这起案件中，特朗普辩称，司法部本应取代他成为被告，因为他是在回应记者提问时发表相关言论，属于其总统职责范围内的行为。而司法部不能因诽谤被起诉，这原本可以终结这场诉讼。
今年9月，上诉法院的法官小组驳回了这些论点，认定特朗普放弃了主张豁免权的权利，且最高法院2024年关于豁免权的判决并未改变其观点。
在周三的判决中，三名上诉法院法官与多数意见相悖，表示他们将重审此案。
“无论人们对特朗普诉美国案的案情持何种看法，所有人都同意这代表了重大的法律发展，”这三名法官在一份54页的反对意见中写道。“我将下令由全体法官重审此案，以使我们关于总统职责范围和豁免权的判例法与最高法院的判决保持一致，并根据宪法分权原则和正常的司法实践，解决这些具有特殊重要性的问题。”
资深巡回法官陈卓光（Denny Chin）写道，多数法官的判决是正确的。
“反对意见超出了已提交的两份请愿书的范围，对我们的判决以及本院此前的裁决提出了质疑，而特朗普和政府在其重审请愿书中并未对这些裁决提出异议。针对请愿方未提出的这些问题进行全体法官复审的请求被适当驳回，”陈卓光写道。
Federal appeals court won’t rehear Trump’s appeal of E. Jean Carroll’s $83 million jury award
2026-04-29T15:42:53.134Z / CNN
By Kara Scannell
PUBLISHED Apr 29, 2026, 11:42 AM ET
E. Jean Carroll leaves Manhattan Federal Court in New York, following the conclusion of her civil defamation trial against Donald Trump, on January 26, 2024.
Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images/File
A split federal appeals court said its full bench of judges would not rehear President Donald Trump’s appeal of the $83 million jury award for defaming magazine columnist E Jean Carroll.
The decision paves the way for Trump to ask the US Supreme Court to hear his arguments involving presidential immunity following the high court’s landmark 2024 decision.
In a split decision, a majority of judges on the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied Trump’s motion to have his appeal heard “en banc” or by the full bench of judges.
The decision is the latest turn in a six -year legal battle between Carroll and Trump that resulted in two civil trials including one where Trump briefly took the witness stand.
“The American People stand with President Trump in demanding an immediate end to the unlawful, radical weaponization of our justice system, and a swift dismissal of all of the Witch Hunts, including the illegal, Democrat-funded travesty of the Carroll Hoaxes—the defense of which the Attorney General has determined is legally required to be taken over by the Department of Justice because Carroll based her false claims on the President’s official acts,” a spokesman for Trump’s legal team told CNN. “President Trump and his legal team will be appealing this decision as he continues to fight against, and consistently defeat, Liberal Lawfare.”
Related article E. Jean Carroll leaves Manhattan Federal Court in New York, following the conclusion of her civil defamation trial against Donald Trump on January 26, 2024. Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images/File Trump asks Supreme Court to overturn verdict that he sexually abused and defamed E. Jean Carroll 2 min read
Roberta Kaplan, a lawyer for Carroll, also issued a statement:
“E. Jean Carroll is eager for this case, originally filed in 2019, to be over so that she can finally obtain justice.”
Trump had asked the full bench to rehear arguments that a panel of judges rejected in September. The panel affirmed the jury’s verdict that Trump defamed Carroll when in 2022, during his first term, he denied her allegations of sexual assault, said she wasn’t his type, and suggested she made up the allegations to sell copies of her new book. The jury awarded Carroll $83 million in damages.
In 2023, a different jury found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation of Carroll over an alleged assault that occurred in the mid-1990s at a New York department store and for statements he made in 2019 denying it happened. That jury awarded Carroll $5 million in damages.
Trump asked the Supreme Court to hear his challenge to the $5 million judgment, but the court has not yet decided. In that case, Trump has said the trial judge made mistakes by allowing two other women to testify about alleged sexual assaults by Trump and by allowing Trump’s hot mic comments to Access Hollywood to be played in court.
In the current case, Trump argued the Justice Department should have been substituted for him as a defendant because he made the statements within the scope of his duties as president in response to questions by reporters. The Justice Department can’t be sued for defamation so it would have ended the litigation.
In September, the panel of appeals court judges rejected those arguments finding that Trump waived his right to claim immunity and that the Supreme Court 2024 decision on immunity didn’t alter its view.
In Wednesday’s decision, three of the appeals court judges disagreed with the majority and said they would have reheard the case.
“Whatever one thinks about the merits of Trump v. United States, everyone agrees that it represents a significant legal development,” the three judges wrote in a 54-page dissenting opinion. “I would rehear the case en banc to bring our case law about the scope of presidential duties and immunity into conformity with decisions of the Supreme Court and to resolve these questions of exceptional importance in line with the constitutional separation of powers and normal judicial practice.”
Denny Chin, a senior circuit judge, wrote that the majority got it right.
“The dissent goes further than either of the filed petitions, challenging rulings in our decisions, as well as prior decisions of this Court, that neither Trump nor the Government contests in their petitions for rehearing. En banc review of these issues, which were not raised by the petitioning parties, was properly denied,” Chin wrote.
发表回复