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.

Love true crime? Sign up for our newsletter, The Law&Crime Docket, to get the latest real-life crime stories delivered right to your inbox.

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.”