Trump Urges Supreme Court to Overturn E. Jean Carroll $5M Verdict/ Newslooks/ WASHINGTON/ J. Mansour/ Morning Edition/ President Donald Trump has formally petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to throw out a civil jury’s decision that awarded $5 million to columnist E. Jean Carroll. Trump denies all allegations and argues that the trial was flawed due to improper evidence. Carroll maintains her claims, and prior appellate courts upheld the verdict.
Trump Supreme Court Appeal Quick Looks
- Trump is asking the Supreme Court to dismiss a $5 million verdict
- Carroll accused him of sexual abuse and defamation in civil suits
- Trump’s legal team claims judicial bias and lack of evidence
- Carroll’s lawyers stand by the court rulings and jury findings
- The outcome could impact Trump’s ongoing legal and political future
Trump Challenges Carroll Verdict: Supreme Court Appeal Quick Looks
- Trump is appealing a civil court ruling that found him liable for sexual abuse and defamation
- His attorneys argue that the trial was biased, with improper evidence admitted
- Carroll testified that Trump assaulted her in the mid-1990s at a department store
- Trump’s legal team is accusing the courts of enabling a political vendetta
- The 2nd Circuit Court has already upheld the ruling
- Trump seeks a more favorable hearing from the conservative-leaning Supreme Court
Trump Urges Supreme Court to Overturn E. Jean Carroll $5M Verdict
Deep Look
In a bold legal move, President Donald Trump is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse a jury verdict that held him civilly liable for sexually abusing and defaming writer E. Jean Carroll. The case stems from Carroll’s claim that Trump assaulted her in the dressing room of Bergdorf Goodman, a luxury department store in Manhattan, during the 1990s.
In a filing delivered Monday, Trump’s legal team contended that the verdict — which required Trump to pay Carroll $5 million in damages — was based on flawed legal grounds and improper evidentiary decisions made during the 2023 trial. According to his lawyers, the presiding judge allowed Carroll’s team to present prejudicial evidence, including past accusations from other women, which they argue unfairly influenced the jury.
Carroll, a prominent advice columnist and former television host, publicly accused Trump in 2019 through a memoir. Her account described what she said began as a lighthearted exchange with Trump at Bergdorf Goodman but escalated into a violent encounter in a dressing room. The jury agreed with her version of events in the 2023 civil trial and later found Trump liable for defamation as well, due to his public denials in 2022.
Trump’s attorneys, led by Missouri-based lawyer Justin D. Smith, blasted the outcome as a result of judicial overreach. They called Carroll’s case a “politically motivated hoax,” citing the absence of physical evidence, eyewitnesses, or a police report. They criticized U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan for allegedly misapplying federal evidentiary rules to favor Carroll’s narrative and for admitting testimony from two other women who accused Trump of similar misconduct.
These women testified that Trump had sexually assaulted them in separate incidents — one dating back to the 1970s and another in 2005. Trump has denied all claims of sexual misconduct.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the $5 million verdict in December 2024, despite Trump’s objections to the trial’s handling. When Trump later petitioned the full court for a review, that request was denied in June 2025. This left Trump with one final legal avenue: an appeal to the nation’s highest court.
In their Supreme Court brief, Trump’s lawyers argued that Judge Kaplan’s decisions had lasting effects, especially during the second defamation trial in 2024. In that case, a jury awarded Carroll an additional $83.3 million in damages. The judge instructed the jury to accept the findings of the first trial — that Trump had sexually abused Carroll — which, according to his legal team, denied Trump a fair chance to contest the accusation again.
The second defamation case focused on Trump’s 2019 remarks, made after Carroll’s public accusations. Although Trump testified briefly during the trial, he did not participate in the initial proceedings. His lawyers now argue that the judge’s instruction tied his hands and led to a compounded unjust judgment.
Roberta Kaplan, Carroll’s lawyer (not related to Judge Kaplan), previously expressed confidence that the Supreme Court would find no compelling reason to review the case. She emphasized that Trump’s legal team has consistently failed to introduce valid grounds for overturning the verdicts.
A spokesperson for Trump’s legal team framed the appeal as part of a larger battle against what they labeled “Liberal Lawfare.” In a statement, the spokesperson claimed Trump is being targeted for political purposes and vowed to continue fighting against “Democrat-funded” lawsuits.
Despite his legal setbacks, Trump has recently seen success in other courtrooms. In August 2025, a New York appellate court dismissed a major civil fraud ruling that had imposed substantial financial penalties on him and his business. That win has fueled his continued resistance to other civil and criminal cases he faces.
The implications of the Supreme Court’s response could extend beyond this individual lawsuit. A favorable ruling for Trump could potentially undermine the legitimacy of civil trials involving sexual assault claims, especially those brought forward long after the alleged incidents occurred. Conversely, a rejection of his appeal would reaffirm the standing verdicts and bolster the legal precedent for holding public figures accountable through civil litigation.
Carroll’s willingness to publicly identify herself has allowed her case to proceed with a rare degree of visibility, setting it apart from many others involving allegations of sexual misconduct.
You must Register or Login to post a comment.