Status of e. jean carrol case against donald trump
Executive summary
President Trump has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a federal jury’s 2023 finding that he sexually abused and defamed writer E. Jean Carroll and the $5 million judgment that followed; a Second Circuit panel affirmed that $5 million verdict on Dec. 30, 2024, and Trump’s en banc request was denied in June 2025 [1] [2]. The administration’s Justice Department has filed an amicus brief raising presidential-immunity questions and Trump’s petition is now pending before the Supreme Court, with Carroll’s response due in the coming weeks [3] [4].
1. What the verdict found and what remains at stake
A federal jury in May 2023 found Trump liable for sexually abusing Carroll (not for rape) and for defaming her; that verdict produced a $5 million award in the initial case and later proceedings yielded a separate $83.3 million defamation judgment that has also survived appeals, meaning multiple sizable civil judgments against the president are now entangled in appellate review [4] [5] [2].
2. Appeals history to date: Second Circuit and en banc denial
A three-judge panel of the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings and upheld the $5 million award, concluding evidentiary rulings — including admission of other women’s testimony and the 2005 “Access Hollywood” tape under federal rules permitting propensity evidence in sexual-assault cases — were within permissible bounds or harmless even if erroneous [1] [6]. Trump sought rehearing en banc and that request was denied in June 2025 [2] [7].
3. The Supreme Court petition: arguments and the DOJ brief
Trump’s petition asks the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the jury’s finding, arguing Judge Lewis Kaplan erred by admitting propensity evidence and the Access Hollywood tape and that such rulings unfairly prejudiced the jury; the filing frames Carroll’s claims as “implausible” and politically motivated [8] [9]. The Justice Department has filed an amicus brief emphasizing a separate but pivotal legal question: whether a president has immunity from civil damages for statements made in an official capacity — an argument that could, if accepted, carry broader implications for presidential liability [3] [2].
4. How likely is the Supreme Court to take the case?
Whether the high court will grant review is uncertain; petitions require four justices to accept them. Observers and Carroll’s attorney have expressed differing expectations — some legal commentators see potential for the conservative-majority court to consider immunity questions, while Carroll’s counsel told media she did not expect the justices to take the case [7] [10]. Available sources do not offer a definitive prediction from the Court itself (not found in current reporting).
5. What a Supreme Court review could decide — narrow vs. sweeping outcomes
If the Court accepts the petition, it could limit itself to narrow evidentiary rulings (e.g., admissibility standards for propensity evidence) or tackle sweeping constitutional issues such as presidential immunity for civil damages tied to official acts. The DOJ’s amicus brief signals the latter possibility; a ruling in the government’s favor could potentially extinguish or shift liability to the United States, affecting not only Carroll’s awards but future suits alleging official-act wrongdoing [3] [2].
6. Competing narratives and political framing
Trump’s legal team and supporters characterize the litigation as politically motivated “lawfare” and argue the trial was infected by improper evidentiary rulings [9] [11]. Carroll and her attorneys portray the appeal as an attempt to evade responsibility for “extraordinary and unprecedented” post-accusation attacks, and appellate judges have described Trump’s public statements as aggravating factors that justified large punitive awards [5] [1].
7. Practical consequences now for collection and enforcement
Because the appeals process has left judgments intact through the Second Circuit and an en banc denial, Carroll has been able to secure and collect funds in some instances (including escrow arrangements noted in press accounts), yet further relief could hinge on whether the Supreme Court intervenes and on any DOJ position that could substitute the United States for Trump in damages claims — a complex procedural avenue the appeals courts and the DOJ have already explored [7] [2] [3].
Limitations: this account relies solely on the provided reporting; there may be additional filings, courtroom orders or oral arguments not included in the cited sources (available sources do not mention any such subsequent developments).