Supreme Court declines to hear Trump’s appeal of E. Jean Carroll verdict
The United States Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear President Donald Trump’s appeal of the $5 million civil judgment finding him liable for sexually abusing and defaming writer E. Jean Carroll.
The justices denied Trump’s petition without comment, as is customary, allowing a lower court’s decision to stand. At least four justices of the conservative-majority court would have needed to vote in favor of hearing the case.
A federal jury in New York in 2023 found Trump liable for sexually abusing Carroll in a dressing room at Bergdorf Goodman in 1996 and for defaming her through statements made in 2022 denying the allegation.
The jury awarded Carroll $5 million in damages. Although jurors did not find Trump liable for rape under New York’s legal definition in effect at the time, they concluded he had sexually abused Carroll.
Trump has consistently denied Carroll’s allegations, calling them false and politically motivated. In asking the Supreme Court to intervene, his attorneys argued the trial was tainted by evidentiary rulings that allowed jurors to hear testimony from two other women who accused Trump of sexual misconduct, as well as the 2005 Access Hollywood recording. They argued the evidence unfairly prejudiced the jury and warranted a new trial.
Trump is also appealing an additional $83.3 million awarded to Carroll after a second defamation trial, but it has not come across the Supreme Court’s desk yet.
Carroll first made her allegations against Trump in 2019, filing her lawsuit three years later, under a New York law passed around the same time that removed the statute of limitations to bring civil lawsuits related to sexual abuse.
The Justice Department launched an investigation into the LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman’s ties to a nonprofit organization that allegedly helped support Carroll’s litigation efforts against Trump. Carroll had testified that no one was helping her pay her legal fees, and her attorney later said the writer stands by her account but that she later recalled her counsel receiving additional funding to cover “certain expenses and fees.”