Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Has Donald Trump appealed the E. Jean Carroll verdicts?
Executive Summary
Donald Trump has appealed the E. Jean Carroll jury verdicts and pursued multiple levels of review; the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the lower‑court decisions and Trump subsequently sought Supreme Court review. The litigation produced separate damage awards — a $5 million judgment and an $83.3 million defamation judgment — that have been the subject of appeals and a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court [1] [2] [3].
1. Why the appeals exist and what they challenge — a procedural map that matters
Trump’s legal team framed the appeals as challenges to evidence rulings, jury instructions, and the legal basis for liability in both the sexual‑assault and defamation strands of Carroll’s case. The initial jury trial produced a $5 million award for sexual abuse and defamation and a separate roughly $83.3 million award tied to statements about Carroll’s reputation; Trump filed appeals contesting both judgments, arguing trial‑level errors and seeking vacatur of the awards. The Second Circuit reviewed those claims, and the appellate rulings left the underlying verdicts intact, which in turn opened a statutory window for a Supreme Court petition. Reporting describes the appeals as sequential: district court judgment, Second Circuit review, denials of further rehearing requests, and a petition to the nation’s high court [4] [2] [5].
2. How appellate courts ruled — a timeline of affirmations and denials
A federal appeals panel and subsequent appellate action affirmed the jury’s findings and the damages awards, rejecting Trump’s arguments that trial errors required reversal or a new trial. One set of appellate rulings concluded in the summer of 2025 with an affirmation that triggered a 90‑day period during which the losing party could ask the Supreme Court to intervene, and later second‑circuit rulings upheld the larger defamation judgment as well. Multiple reputable outlets reported that the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to overturn the awards and that efforts for en banc rehearing were unsuccessful, leaving the judgments standing absent Supreme Court action [5] [1] [6].
3. The Supreme Court petition — what was asked and what it implies
Trump’s lawyers took the unusual step of petitioning the Supreme Court to review the appellate affirmances, asking justices to overturn or narrow the verdicts. One major account described the petition as the first time these specific appeals reached the high court, signaling an effort to make this a nationwide precedent about presidential immunity, defamation law, or evidentiary standards in sexual‑assault litigation. Filing a petition does not mean the Supreme Court accepted the case; it is a request for discretionary review. The fact of a petition, however, escalates the dispute from routine appeals practice to a potential test of legal principles that could have broader implications if the justices grant certiorari [7] [2].
4. Numbers that matter — the awards and the court’s posture on damages
The litigation produced two distinct monetary awards that have been focal points of both public attention and the appeals: the $5 million judgment tied to the sexual‑abuse and defamation claim and a later roughly $83.3 million award for defamation and reputational harms. Appellate courts examined whether those amounts were supported by evidence and legal standards, and concluded they were not excessive or legally infirm. News accounts describing the 2nd Circuit’s decisions emphasize that the appellate panel viewed the jury’s damage findings as within reasonable bounds and consistent with law, which was a primary basis for denying Trump’s requests to vacate or reduce the awards [1] [3].
5. Competing narratives and the agendas behind them — read the posture, not just the headlines
Coverage varies by outlet: some stories emphasize that Trump “asked the Supreme Court to toss” the verdicts and frame the petitions as an effort to overturn a jury verdict; others treat the appeals as routine appellate process with the Second Circuit already rejecting key claims. These differences reflect editorial choices about emphasis — legal strategy versus judicial outcome — rather than disagreement over core facts. Sources reporting appeals and appeals‑court affirmances present a consistent procedural record: appeals were filed, the 2nd Circuit affirmed, rehearing bids failed, and a Supreme Court petition followed. Readers should note editorial framing and institutional viewpoints when interpreting headlines and should rely on the procedural record for the factual sequence [7] [1] [8] [6].