How have courts and juries ruled in lawsuits related to Trump's sexual misconduct allegations?

1. A landmark civil finding: E. Jean Carroll’s May 2023 verdict

A New York jury in May 2023 found Trump liable under civil standards for sexually abusing columnist E. Jean Carroll in a Manhattan department store in the mid‑1990s and for defaming her when he denied the allegation, awarding Carroll $5 million for the sexual‑abuse/defamation verdict; the jury did not answer that he had committed rape, but did find sexual abuse occurred by the preponderance of the evidence ^{[5] [1]}.

2. Appeals, affirmations and expanding damages in Carroll’s suits

After the jury verdict, Trump lost an initial appeal and a three‑judge federal appellate panel in December 2024 upheld the $5 million verdict, rejecting many of Trump’s claims that trial judge Lewis Kaplan erred — and the panel later rejected an en banc rehearing request in mid‑2025; meanwhile a separate jury awarded Carroll substantially larger damages for later‑dated defamation that also has been affirmed on appeal, creating multiple judgments that Trump has challenged up to the U.S. Supreme Court ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

3. How evidence of other allegations was treated in court

Judge Kaplan allowed testimony from two other women who alleged separate incidents of misconduct as pattern evidence in Carroll’s trial; appellate courts later considered and rejected Trump’s contention that permitting that testimony was reversible error, a pivotal point the administration is continuing to contest in higher courts ^{[1] [6] [3]}.

4. Trump’s legal strategy: appeals and Supreme Court petitions

Trump’s legal team has repeatedly appealed adverse rulings, framing trial‑level decisions as improper; in November 2025 he asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review and overturn the Carroll verdicts, arguing trial errors — a petition reflecting the strategy of elevating civil litigation findings into high‑court review ^{[2] [6]}.

5. Broader landscape: many allegations, few court findings in sources provided

Reporting and compilations document dozens of women who have accused Trump of varying sexual misconduct over decades, and multiple lawsuits have been filed at various times, but the clearest, repeatedly litigated and judicially resolved matters in the supplied sources are the Carroll cases — other allegations are described in chronicles and encyclopedic entries, yet those sources do not show comparable civil or criminal judicial findings during the period covered here ^{[4] [7]}.

6. What the courts did not do (according to available reporting)

Available reporting in these sources does not show criminal convictions tied to these allegations; instead the covered outcomes are civil jury findings and monetary awards (noted especially in Carroll’s suits), and other lawsuits mentioned in summary histories were dismissed or remain contested without the same level of final, reported judgment in the supplied set ^{[1] [4]}.

7. Competing perspectives and the political context

Coverage presents two competing narratives: Carroll and her lawyers framed the trials as vindication and a formal legal finding of misconduct, while Trump and his attorneys have called the verdicts unjust, sought to exclude testimony at trial, and escalated appeals up to the Supreme Court — observers note that the litigation has become politically charged given Trump’s public office and supporters’ defenses ^{[3] [6] [2]}.

8. Why these cases matter beyond damages

Courts applying civil standards (preponderance of the evidence) and admitting corroborating testimony from other accusers were decisive in producing jury verdicts; the appellate affirmations and the push for Supreme Court review show that these lawsuits are shaping precedent about admissibility of pattern evidence, presidential immunity arguments, and civil remedies for alleged sexual misconduct ^{[1] [3]}.

Limitations: this analysis uses only the provided sources; available sources focus heavily on the E. Jean Carroll litigation and do not comprehensively catalog every lawsuit or allegation over the decades, nor do they include outcomes outside the materials cited here ^{[4] [1]}.