In a bid to minimize the scope of the case, former President Donald Trump's legal team argued in a federal appeals court on Monday that he should be allowed to invoke "presidential immunity" as a defense against the defamation lawsuit filed by writer E. Jean Carroll. The case, set to go to trial in January, saw Trump's lawyers reiterating a similar immunity defense in his federal criminal case related to the 2020 election.

Trump's lawyers claimed that the ex-president is "absolutely immune from prosecution" in the criminal case, a view that special counsel Jack Smith deemed to be in direct conflict with both American history and the Constitution. Michael Madaio, Trump's lawyer, contended before the three-judge panel of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals that presidential immunity is an "absolute and non-waivable protection."

Madaio emphasized the potential far-reaching consequences of the court's decision, stating, "If this court does not overturn the lower court's ruling, a president, for the first time in our nation's history, will be held civilly liable for his official acts."

The lawsuit stems from comments Trump made in 2019 during his presidency when he accused Carroll of peddling a false rape accusation against him. He further suggested that she was motivated by financial gain. A district judge previously dismissed Trump's immunity argument, prompting him to appeal to the 2nd Circuit. During the 45-minute argument, the three-judge panel, composed entirely of Democratic appointees, refrained from expressing their inclinations.

E. Jean Carroll has already won a civil trial against Trump earlier this year. The jury determined that Trump had sexually abused Carroll and defamed her in 2022 by dismissing her account as a "hoax." Consequently, the jury ordered Trump to pay Carroll $5 million, a verdict that he has since appealed.

The upcoming January trial revolves around a separate lawsuit filed by Carroll, specifically concerning Trump's comments in 2019 and his subsequent remarks on CNN following the first trial's conclusion. In September, a judge ruled that the jury for the upcoming trial would only need to determine the amount of compensation Trump must pay Carroll, having already established the defamatory nature of his statements. However, if an appeals court agrees with Trump's immunity argument, the issue of his liability for the 2019 statements may become irrelevant.

Carroll's lawyer, Joshua Matz, urged the panel of judges to reject Trump's assertion of presidential immunity, citing the Capitol riot on January 6, 2021, as an example where a president should be held accountable for their public statements. Matz argued that it would be inconsistent with a presidential system to grant complete immunity when a president's speech causes significant harm to private citizens.

The court now holds the pivotal decision in determining the applicability of presidential immunity in this defamation lawsuit, which carries implications for future cases involving the liability of a sitting or former president for their official acts.