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.
E Jean Carroll assault allegations
Executive summary
President Donald Trump has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review and overturn a $5 million civil verdict that a jury found him liable for sexually abusing and defaming writer E. Jean Carroll over an incident in a Manhattan department store in the mid‑1990s; he argues the trial was tainted by improper evidentiary rulings, including admission of testimony by other accusers and the “Access Hollywood” tape [1] [2] [3]. Multiple outlets report the petition follows failed appeals and an unsuccessful en banc bid, and that Carroll has also won a separate $83.3 million defamation judgment tied to related remarks [1] [4] [5].
1. What the Supreme Court filing says and why Trump pushed it
Trump’s petition asks the Supreme Court to overturn the $5 million verdict on the grounds that trial Judge Lewis Kaplan “erred” by admitting what Trump’s lawyers call “highly inflammatory propensity evidence” — chiefly testimony from two other women who alleged similar conduct and the 2005 Access Hollywood recording — and that those rulings made the allegation “facially implausible” and politically motivated [2] [6] [7]. Reporting notes the petition frames these evidentiary questions as ones that could affect how courts nationwide treat propensity evidence in civil and criminal cases, urging the high court to resolve perceived circuit splits [8] [9].
2. The underlying jury findings and what jurors actually decided
A New York civil jury in 2023 found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Trump sexually abused Carroll in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room in the mid‑1990s and that he later defamed her; that verdict produced the $5 million award at issue in the petition [1] [2]. The jury did not find him liable for rape under New York’s narrower legal definition, instead finding a lesser degree of sexual abuse [4] [3]. Separately, a different jury in another proceeding awarded Carroll $83.3 million for defamation tied to later statements — that larger award remains the subject of related litigation and enforcement steps [1] [4].
3. Appeals history before the Supreme Court request
Before asking the Supreme Court for review, Trump’s legal team lost at multiple stages: a three‑judge federal appeals panel affirmed the $5 million verdict (rejecting claims of trial error), a request for rehearing en banc was denied in June 2025, and now the petition marks the next step in a long appellate path [2] [4]. News outlets characterize this filing as Trump’s “last hope” to overturn the jury’s unanimous civil finding, since there is no automatic right to Supreme Court review [10] [5].
4. Competing narratives in coverage — lawfare vs. vindication
Trump’s team portrays the verdict as the product of political bias and improper evidentiary rulings — framing the litigation as “liberal lawfare” and the Carroll claims as “politically motivated” [2] [7]. Carroll’s supporters and the trial‑court record, as described by outlets, emphasize the jury’s unanimous finding that a preponderance of evidence supported her account and that appeals courts have rejected Trump’s challenges to the trial judge’s decisions [1] [11]. Different outlets highlight these competing frames: some emphasize procedural errors alleged by Trump [6] [8], while others stress that appellate courts already upheld the verdict [1] [4].
5. Evidence that shaped the trial and why it matters now
Reporting notes the trial included testimony from two other women who accused Trump of similar misconduct (one alleging an incident in the 1970s and another in 2005), and jurors heard the Access Hollywood tape; Trump’s lawyers argue these items improperly suggested a propensity to offend and prejudiced the jury [10] [2] [3]. Coverage also underscores that the government’s broader positions — such as the Department of Justice arguing about presidential capacity for statements — intersected with procedural appeals, adding legal complexity to the post‑verdict fight [4].
6. What’s next and limits on what reporting says
The Supreme Court has discretion whether to take the case; it is not known when or whether the justices will grant review, and the petition’s appearance on the court’s docket may lag what outlets have reviewed [10] [2]. Available sources do not mention the Supreme Court’s response or an oral-argument date because the filing is recent and the high court’s decision whether to hear the case remains pending [2] [1].
Limitations and note on sourcing: this analysis relies solely on the provided reporting from national outlets and aggregations; factual assertions above are drawn from those items and cited accordingly [1] [2] [4] [3] [6] [9] [11] [5] [8]. Different outlets emphasize different legal and political frames, which I’ve presented side‑by‑side rather than resolving contested interpretations.