SCOTUS Rules on Trump’s Bid To Overturn E. Jean Carroll Verdict
By Martin Walsh
In a quiet but significant move on Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear President Donald Trump’s appeal of a $5 million civil verdict finding him liable for sexual abuse and defamation in the long-running case brought by writer E. Jean Carroll.
The denial leaves intact a jury’s 2023 decision from New York federal court, even as the sitting president contends the proceedings represent a politically motivated distraction from his duties leading the nation.
The ruling comes as Trump navigates a second term focused on border security, economic revival, and restoring American strength abroad.
Critics on the right have long viewed the Carroll litigation as classic lawfare—a weaponized legal process designed to tie up a conservative leader in endless court battles.
Because the justices did not dissent or issue written opinions, the high court left the petition unexplained.
Legal observers note that certiorari denials are common and do not necessarily endorse the lower courts’ reasoning, but the outcome forces Trump to shoulder the judgment while pressing forward on other fronts.
The case traces back to Carroll’s allegation that Trump sexually abused her in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room in the mid-1990s.
A jury found Trump liable for sexual battery—not rape under New York civil definitions—and defamation related to his public denials of her claims.
Carroll was awarded $5 million total.
A separate defamation trial produced an $83.3 million award, which remains under appeal and subject to further challenges, including arguments over presidential immunity and the Westfall Act.
#BREAKING: Supreme Court won’t hear Trump’s bid to overturn Carroll sexual abuse verdicthttps://t.co/aY40wC4WV2
— The Hill (@thehill) June 29, 2026
Trump’s legal team had urged the Supreme Court to take the case, arguing that prejudicial evidence had tainted the trial.
They highlighted the admission of testimony from two other women who accused Trump of past misconduct, along with the infamous 2005 “Access Hollywood” tape in which he made crude remarks about women.
Trump’s petition contended these elements violated federal rules of evidence, created unfair prejudice, and conflicted with precedents on similar-fact evidence.
Lawyers described Carroll’s allegations as “implausible” and “unsubstantiated,” insisting the entire matter amounted to a politically timed effort to damage him.
In filings to the high court, Trump’s attorneys wrote: “It is deeply damaging to the fabric of our republic for President Trump, in the midst of a historic presidency, to have to take his focus away from his singular and unique duties as chief executive to continue fighting against decades-old, false allegations and the myriad wrongs throughout this baseless case. This mistreatment of a President cannot be allowed to stand.”
Trump himself has repeatedly called the claims a “con job” and “fiction,” pointing to what he sees as inconsistencies in Carroll’s account and motivations tied to book sales and political opposition.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals had upheld the $5 million verdict, determining that the evidentiary rulings by U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan fell within permissible discretion and that any potential errors were harmless.
Carroll’s side emphasized the jury’s unanimous findings after hearing testimony, including from Carroll herself, who described the alleged encounter in detail.
Yet conservative commentators have questioned the credibility of a decades-old claim lacking physical evidence, revived at a politically opportune moment during Trump’s first term and subsequent campaigns.
They argue the civil standard of proof — preponderance of evidence rather than beyond reasonable doubt — allowed the case to proceed on thin grounds, amplified by media coverage hostile to the former and current president.
Monday’s denial means Carroll can seek to enforce the $5 million judgment, though stays and bonds have delayed collection in related proceedings.
For the $83 million defamation award, Trump’s team continues to press arguments that statements made from the White House were official acts protected by presidential immunity
Original Here
|
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐