A federal appeals court has ruled that Donald Trump will not have to pay the $83.3m defamation award to writer E Jean Carroll until the US supreme court either reviews the case or rejects an appeal.

The second US circuit court of appeals in New York issued the order on Monday, granting a request by the president’s lawyers to delay the payment while he seeks supreme court review.

But the court also required that Trump increase the bond by $7.46m, to account for interest that would accrue on Carroll’s award during any further legal proceedings before the nation’s highest court.

Carroll’s lawyer, Roberta Kaplan, said in a statement to NBC News on Tuesday that “we are pleased that the Second Circuit conditioned the stay on President Trump posting a bond of nearly $100 million”, citing an earlier increase Trump already posted to bring the amount owed to over $91.6m before Monday’s order.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment about Monday’s ruling.

Late last month, the same court rejected Trump’s request to rehear his appeal of the $83.3m case, but Trump’s team asked for the decision to be paused until after the supreme court could consider an appeal.

In January 2024, a Manhattan jury ordered Trump to pay Carroll $83.3m for defaming her in 2019 after she accused him of raping her inside the dressing room of a Manhattan department store in the 1990s. It came a year after a separate jury awarded Carroll $5m in damages after finding Trump liable for sexually abusing and defaming Carroll. Trump has repeatedly denied the allegations.

So far, federal appeals courts have upheld both verdicts. In December 2024, a federal appeals court upheld the $5m verdict, and last September, a federal appeals court also upheld the $83.3m jury award against the president.

Trump is challenging the $83m award on several grounds, according to the Associated Press, including asserting “absolute immunity” for comments he made about Carroll while president.

Last year, Trump also asked the supreme court to overturn the $5m verdict, with his lawyers arguing that allegations leading to the verdict were “propped up” by a “series of indefensible evidentiary rulings”.