Trump’s private lawsuits are piling up
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2026/8/18/800085910/news/trumps-private-lawsuits-are-piling-up/
Trump’s private lawsuits are piling up
President Donald Trump may be one of a very select few plaintiffs who can say that the Supreme Court ruled against him twice in the exact same way in the exact same case.
That’s because most people understand that the Supreme Court is sorta the end of the line and they don’t ask for a do-over. But that’s what Trump did with his endless attempts to get the verdicts in not one, but two, cases involving his sexual abuse victim E. Jean Carroll tossed out.
In the first case, Carroll I, Trump was found liable for sexually abusing Carroll, and she was awarded $5 million.
After he lost that case, he promptly defamed Carroll, and a separate jury found him liable for that, this time to the tune of $83 million in Carroll II. He’s been desperate to make these things go away and, even though he’s president, he apparently has nothing but time.
Related | E. Jean Carroll prevails, and Trump keeps losing in court
So, after the nation’s highest court told Trump nope at the end of June, declining to grant his petition for certiorari in Carroll I, he immediately declared he was going to ask the court to reconsider. How strange that they didn’t want to take on an extended whinefest of a case from Trump where he would bluster about how it simply isn’t fair that he has to pay Carroll $5 million just because he lost at every court level, multiple times.
Presumably he’d also like to wipe out the verdict of being liable for sexually abusing Carroll, but let’s face it: He probably cares far more about the money.
Trump, of course, yelled about it on Truth Social and then tried to refuse to pay, saying he shouldn’t be required to cough up money until he asked the Supreme Court a second time.
But lower courts aren’t stupid. There are plenty of litigants like Trump, willing to drag the other side through hell for no real reason, and there’s a solution for that: When you lose, the money goes in escrow, where it sits until all the appeals are done. Then, it automatically goes to the other party. Trump had even agreed to this in writing—that he’d pay if the Supreme Court didn’t take up his case. So even as Trump was blustering about how he wasn’t going to pay, he’d already paid.
His Truth Social posting about this was exactly what you’d expect: an unconstitutional, unhinged demand that the court let him do whatever he wants, because he is president, and if they won’t let him skate on the judgment, it’s the end of democracy.
“This Case is really against the United States of America, and all it stands for, and should never be allowed to happen to another President, or Candidate to be,” he whined.
Trump did indeed run back to the court to ask them to reconsider, with a confusing new theory about how if the Supreme Court takes up his other appeal in Carroll II, that would somehow magically wipe out the sexual abuse verdict and judgment in Carroll I. No idea how he thinks that works.
But on Monday, Trump really did run out of road for Carroll I when the Supreme Court told him nope, again, and that really is the end of the line.
Though this is the end of the line for Carroll I, he’s still dragging her through the mud on Carroll II. He’s begging the Supreme Court to make that one go away based on his theory that when he defamed Carroll in 2019, that was part of his official duties as president, and he should be immune.
He also got the Department of Justice to intervene, seeking to substitute the federal government for Trump on account of all that official business. And if the Supreme Court were to agree with that, Carroll is out of luck, as you can’t sue the federal government for defamation.
Trump’s behavior is no less aggro and no less stupid even when it’s his own lawsuit. His attempt to get $10 billion from the BBC for defamation without having to prove either defamation or damages should have been tossed long ago. But Trump lucked out here and got Aileen Cannon 2.0, Judge Roy Altman, who, like Cannon, is one of his appointees who sees their job as protecting Trump, not the justice system.
Related | Everyone warps their values to protect Trump
Altman has functionally turned the case on its head. The BBC moved to dismiss the lawsuit, which normally results in a stay of discovery, which makes sense. If a party is going to be able to get out at the motion to dismiss stage, very early in the litigation, making the defendant pony up scads of discovery is burdensome because none of it is relevant if they succeed on their motion.
But Altman has functionally barred the BBC from getting discovery from Trump while simultaneously forcing the BBC to provide discovery to Trump. Altman is the perfect judge for Trump, the man who believes it is outrageous that he has to provide anything at all. He said he wants $10 billion, so the BBC has to give him $10 billion!
Meanwhile, the BBC is having to go to court to try to have the court help them obtain testimony and documents from Trump’s Jan. 6 inner circle: Donald Trump Jr., son-in-law Jared Kushner, and Ivanka Trump. But they all have Secret Service protection, which is a pretty effective way to avoid being served. But per Trump, trying to subpoena witnesses is just the BBC “trying to distract away from their own obvious liability.”
Buddy, it’s a lawsuit. It’s YOUR lawsuit. You’re the one that has to prove things, not the BBC. Even Altman probably isn’t going to bless an argument that he should just rule against the BBC without a trial or discovery or anything.
And don’t forget Trump is also at war with The Wall Street Journal. Earlier this year, a federal judge threw the lawsuit out, saying Trump hadn’t plausibly alleged that the newspaper published the article revealing his gross little birthday boobies drawing for his pal, convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, with malicious intent.
Then Trump got the right to refile the suit, which he did in May. But he didn’t draw a sycophant like Altman, despite bringing the suit in Florida, which is usually a safe bet for Trump. Instead he drew Judge Darrin Gayles, an Obama appointee, and Gayles is handling things the right ‘way round. Since The Wall Street Journal moved to dismiss, Gayles has stayed discovery pending his ruling on that motion.
Additionally, after a recent hearing, it doesn’t look like Judge Gayles is interested in letting this thing go on, even after giving Trump a second bite at the apple. While it’s infuriating to have to root for The Wall Street Journal, of all media outlets, we’ll take it. The enemy of my enemy … you know the rest.
We'll get straight to the point: The financial hardships that Daily Kos is facing this year are tough.
We continue to be paywall-free. We continue to be supported by our readers, not billionaires or corporations. But we need to bring in more revenue. We are leaning on our community more than ever to help make ends meet.
Trending Conversations
The following is a list of the most commented articles in the last 2 days.
A trending article titled "New Day Cafe: Tuesday" with 136 comments.
A trending article titled "Abbreviated Pundit Roundup: First Amendment wishful thinking?" with 112 comments.
A trending article titled "Jeffries is Wrong. M4All is great politics and great policy. And our voters will not settle for anything less." with 187 comments.
A trending article titled "GNR for Tuesday, August 18th — Pushback works!" with 83 comments.
A trending article titled "Cheers and Jeers: Tuesday" with 56 comments.
A trending article titled "There is only ONE issue to vote on" with 44 comments.
A trending article titled "Ossoff strikes a nerve. White House reacts crudely to Trump mistress talk" with 152 comments.
A trending article titled "Israel in the West Bank: Violence and the Cowardice of the West." with 19 comments.
A trending article titled "My husband was kicked out of hospice for dying too slowly" with 16 comments.
A trending article titled "10 Gems of Bluesky Today - Day 436" with 26 comments.
Conversation
All comments are subject to our Community Guidelines. The views expressed in comments are those of the individual authors and don't necessarily reflect the views of Daily Kos.
All Comments
Active Conversations
The following is a list of the most commented articles in the last 7 days.
A trending article titled "New Day Cafe: Tuesday" with 136 comments.
New Day Cafe: Tuesday
136
A trending article titled "Abbreviated Pundit Roundup: First Amendment wishful thinking?" with 112 comments.
Abbreviated Pundit Roundup: First Amendment wishful thinking?
112