Supreme Court Rejects Trump's Second Bid to Undo E. Jean Carroll Verdict

Today’s Focus

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined a second request from President Donald Trump to review the 2023 civil jury verdict that found him liable for sexually abusing writer E. Jean Carroll in the 1990s and later defaming her, according to the BBC and The Guardian.

The court issued an unsigned order listing Trump’s petition under “rehearings denied,” offering no explanation. The justices had already rejected an initial appeal in June before Trump’s lawyers asked them to reconsider.

The decision leaves in place a $5 million civil judgment returned by a Manhattan federal jury after a two-week trial in 2023, The Guardian reported. Trump had deposited the award, plus interest, into a court-held account, and roughly $5.6 million was released to Carroll’s legal team in July after the first Supreme Court denial.

Carroll, an 82-year-old former magazine columnist, sued Trump in civil court alleging he assaulted her in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room in the mid-1990s. Trump has denied the allegations and called the case a hoax on social media after paying the damages, according to the BBC.

His attorneys had argued that the trial judge improperly admitted prejudicial evidence that shaped the jury’s view of him. Legal analysts cited by the BBC described the request to reconsider a denied petition as a rare and long-shot maneuver.

Roberta Kaplan, Carroll’s lead attorney, said in a statement quoted by The Guardian that the jury’s unanimous verdict “is now final and cannot be challenged in any court.” Carroll thanked her legal team in a newsletter Monday, writing that “one old lady” backed by attorneys and supporters “can do the impossible,” according to the BBC.

The Debate

Supporters argue

Trump and his legal team have maintained throughout the appeals process that the trial was tainted by evidentiary rulings that prejudiced the jury. In filings summarized by the BBC, his attorneys argued that Judge Lewis Kaplan improperly permitted testimony and material that colored jurors’ perceptions before deliberations began.

Trump has repeatedly denied Carroll’s account and, on his Truth Social account, called the underlying incident a hoax, the BBC reported. Allies have framed the civil suit as a politically motivated case brought by an opponent, pointing to Carroll’s public criticism of Trump before she filed.

Trump’s petition asked the justices to correct what his lawyers described as errors that made a fair trial impossible. Supporters of the appeal argued that letting the verdict stand without high-court review sets a precedent for admitting broad character evidence in future civil suits against public figures, a concern raised in his rehearing petition as reported by The Guardian.

They also noted that Trump complied with the judgment by depositing the full award into a court account pending appeal, which his team cited as evidence he pursued the case through proper legal channels rather than resisting payment.

Critics argue

Carroll’s attorneys and supporters said Monday’s order confirms what two juries and multiple appellate reviews have already concluded. Roberta Kaplan told The Guardian she was “pleased” the court declined again and said the verdict is now beyond challenge.

Carroll herself framed the outcome as a vindication for accusers who pursue civil claims against powerful defendants. In her newsletter cited by the BBC, she credited her legal team and “the support of women around the world” for the result.

Legal commentators quoted by the BBC argued that Trump’s rehearing petition was an exceptional request the court almost never grants, and said the denial reflects the strength of the trial record rather than any procedural technicality. They noted a separate three-judge panel had already upheld the verdict on appeal before it reached the justices.

Critics of Trump’s continued public denials, including Carroll’s legal team, argued that his social media posts calling the case a hoax were the same conduct that produced the defamation finding in the first place, and that Monday’s order forecloses any further attempt to relitigate it in court.

What the experts say

Steve Vladeck, a law professor at Georgetown University Law Center who tracks Supreme Court practice, has written that petitions for rehearing after a denied cert petition are almost never granted; the court’s own statistics show they succeed in a tiny fraction of cases each term.

According to data compiled by SCOTUSblog, the Supreme Court receives roughly 7,000 to 8,000 petitions per term and grants review in about 1 percent, with rehearing grants rarer still. That baseline, cited by court-watchers at Georgetown and Harvard Law School, explains why Monday’s order was widely anticipated once the June denial issued.

The underlying case turned on New York’s Adult Survivors Act, a 2022 statute that opened a one-year window for civil suits over decades-old sexual assault claims. Analysts at the Brennan Center for Justice have noted that similar look-back windows in New York and other states produced hundreds of civil filings, of which the Carroll case is among the most prominent.

A separate 2024 ruling from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s evidentiary decisions, and independent legal scholars cited in Reuters coverage said that ruling left few viable federal questions for the Supreme Court to take up.

By the Numbers

$5 million: civil damages the 2023 jury awarded Carroll for sexual abuse and defamation, per The Guardian.
$5.6 million: approximate amount released to Carroll’s legal team in July after the initial Supreme Court denial, including accrued interest, per The Guardian.
2: number of times the Supreme Court has declined to hear Trump’s appeal, first in June and again on Monday, per the BBC.
82: Carroll’s age, per the BBC.
1990s: the decade in which Carroll alleged the assault occurred at a Manhattan department store, per the BBC.
2023: year the Manhattan federal jury returned its unanimous verdict after a two-week trial, per The Guardian.
~1%: approximate share of Supreme Court cert petitions granted each term, per SCOTUSblog data.